Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The "Twofold Grace of God" and the Interpretation of Calvin's Theology 9783666569104, 9783525569108

Citation preview

1

Standard-Titelei 15,5 x 23,2 cm

2

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Wim Janse, Elsie McKee

Volume 2

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Seite 2: Reihentitel

3

Cornelis P. Venema

Accepted and Renewed in Christ The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Seite 3: Innentitel

4

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-525-56910-8

© 2007, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen / www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck- und Bindung: b Hubert & Co, Göttingen. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

Seite 4: Impressum

Contents Contents Contents Preface ....................................................................................................

7

1. Introduction ......................................................................................

9

2. The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies ..............................

13

Part One: The Place of the “Twofold Grace of God” Within Calvin’s Theology 3. The “Twofold Grace of God” Within the Structure of Calvin’s Theology .................................................

33

4. The Knowledge of God as Creator ..................................................

53

5. The Knowledge of God as Redeemer ..............................................

60

Part Two: The “Twofold Grace of God”: Justification and Sanctification 6. Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God”........................

83

7. Justification by Faith: The First Benefit of the “Twofold Grace of God”.........................................................

95

8. Sanctification or Repentance: The Second Benefit of the “Twofold Grace of God”......................................................... 111 9. The Relation of Justification and Sanctification .............................. 132 10. Union with Christ and the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness ................................................................. 150 11. Double Justification ......................................................................... 163

6

Contents

12. Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin’s Theology ........................................................................ 171

Part Three: The “Twofold Grace of God” and Interpretive Issues in Calvin’s Theology 13. The Trinitarian and Christological Basis of the “Twofold Grace of God” ........................................................ 195 14. The “Twofold Grace of God” and Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church and Sacraments ............................ 208 15. The “Twofold Grace of God” and Calvin’s Doctrine of Law and Gospel ............................................. 229 16. The “Twofold Grace of God” and the “Practical Syllogism” .................................................................. 249 17. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 263

Abbreviations ......................................................................................... 277 Selected Bibliography ............................................................................ 279 Index ....................................................................................................... 293

Preface Preface Preface The following study is a revision of my doctoral dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary. The dissertation upon which it is based was originally entitled, The Twofold Nature of the Gospel in Calvin’s Theology: The ‘duplex gratia dei’ and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology. Since the original form of the work has undergone considerable revision, a few comments are in order regarding the nature of the present work. Among the changes to the dissertation, the following are of particular importance: 1) the quotations in the main text are usually given in the English language, though Calvin’s original Latin or French are sometimes also provided for the benefit of the reader; 2) unlike the original dissertation that consisted of several long chapters, the revision is broken into more manageable chapters; and 3) the relevant literature on Calvin’s theology that has appeared since the preparation of the dissertation is incorporated throughout the study. The last of these changes is of the greatest significance. Since the publication of my dissertation, the study of Calvin’s theology has undergone something of a renaissance. Whereas older studies of Calvin’s theology were often influenced by the “central dogma” thesis of nineteenth and early twentieth century research, more recent studies have recognized the complexity of Calvin’s theology and its indebtedness to the theological traditions of western Christian thought prior to the Reformation. Another feature of twentieth century Calvin scholarship was the resurgence of interest in Calvin’s theology associated with the work of Karl Barth and neoorthodoxy. The theological emphases of neo-orthodoxy often governed the interpretation of Calvin’s thought. In the last decades of Calvin studies, however, the influence of neo-orthodoxy upon the study of Calvin’s thought has waned. This development has freed Calvin studies to interpret his thought in its historical context. It is also linked to an approach to the study of Calvin that appeals to his entire literary corpus, including his commentaries and sermons, as a basis for understanding his theology. In the process of revising the original dissertation, I have attempted to incorporate these concerns of more recent Calvin studies. Consistent with the approach of the dissertation, I have also sought to offer an interpretation of Calvin’s theology that, in keeping with the Reformer’s intentions, appeals not only to his Institutes but also to his commentaries and sermons.

8

Preface

It is difficult, if not impossible, to acknowledge all those who have contributed to the preparation of this book. There are several people, however, whose contribution I wish to note with special gratitude. I begin by singling out two of my professors at Princeton who served on my dissertation committee: Professor E. David Willis, who as chairman provided helpful advice at various points in the preparation of the dissertation, and whose own study of Calvin’s “catholic Christology” was a model of excellence; and the late Professor Edward A. Dowey, Jr., who first directed me to consider Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God” as a dissertation topic, and whose work on the knowledge of God in Calvin's theology especially stimulated my interest in Calvin’s theology. I am also thankful for the encouragement and contribution of my faculty colleague, J. Mark Beach, who shares a keen interest in Reformation and post-Reformation Reformed theology; Richard J. Muller, who read my revised manuscript and offered his opinion regarding its publication; and Herman Selderhuis, who expressed interest in my manuscript and offered helpful advice regarding further revisions and editing in preparation for its publication. Several people assisted in editing and preparing my manuscript for publication: Tina Bruns of the editorial staff of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Glenda Mathes, a free-lance writer from Pella, Iowa; student David Robbins; and Donna Fink, a member of the administrative staff at Mid-America Reformed Seminary. Last, but by no means least, I wish to acknowledge an immeasurable debt to my wife, Nancy, and our children, Joseph, Charissa, Rachel, and Carolyn. I shall always be thankful for Nancy’s contributions to and participation in my graduate study at Princeton, when the dissertation on which this study is based was first written. Without her patient endurance, encouragement, and companionship, then and until now, this study could not have been completed.

1. Introduction Introduction Introduction Within the orbit of contemporary theological discussion and writing, there has been a decline of interest in traditional theological topics. Ours is a period, not of theological Summae or comprehensive theological systems, but of diverse theological movements and trends. If there are any common themes in contemporary theology, they often have to do with the problem of theological method or, to use the older language of theology, prolegomenon. Or they have to do with the desire to provide a relevant and social form of theological reflection. In either case, the prevailing assumption is that Christian theology faces serious difficulties in presenting an interpretation of the Christian faith that will prove convincing to modern men and women. Though often left undefined or unchallenged, the “post-modern” framework for contemporary theology has certainly contributed to this decline of interest in the formulations of traditional systematic or dogmatic theology. Against the background of the uncertainty and diversity of contemporary theology, the subject of this study might appear to be only of historical interest. For this study addresses a traditional and important subject of Christian theology, the character of the gospel as understood by the Protestant Reformer, John Calvin. It deals with Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” (duplex gratia dei), the twofold benefit of God’s grace in Christ through faith. This study examines Calvin’s understanding of the nature and relation of justification and sanctification in our reception of salvation through Christ.1 The primary aim of this book is to provide an accurate account of Calvin’s handling of this subject, especially as it contributes to the interpretation of his theology.2 1 In the history of theology, the customary terminology has been that of “justification” and “sanctification.” Though referring to the same subject and issue, Calvin ordinarily uses the terminology of “justification” and “regeneration” or “repentance.” Only infrequently does he speak of “sanctification,” though it is clearly for him a synonym for either regeneration or repentance. In this study, I will commonly use the term “sanctification” rather than “regeneration” or “repentance” for the sake of clarity. I will also use the phrase in quotations, “twofold grace of God,” to refer to what Calvin, in theological shorthand, denominates the duplex gratia dei. 2 Richard Muller, “Directions in Current Calvin Research,” RSR 27/2 (2001): 133, describes a spectrum of theological studies of Calvin that range “from contextual presentation of Calvin’s thought, to decontextualized yet textually sensitive exposition, to works that demonstrate varying degrees of dogmatic overlay.” Though my study will cite sources that treat more directly

10

Introduction

Though primarily a study in the theology of John Calvin, however, it is undertaken on the assumption that theology today must give attention to the classical understanding of the gospel in the Christian tradition. This is especially true regarding the great controversy during the Protestant Reformation over God’s grace in justification, which forms an essential part of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God.” There is a pressing need in contemporary theology to recover and reassess the wealth of its tradition, to be enriched by a renewed acquaintance with the history of Christian theological reflection. This need not require slavish or unreflective allegiance to a particular theologian or theological tradition; nor need it require avoiding new concerns and issues faced by the Christian church and faith today. But without a lively appreciation for the history of theology, contemporary theology will be irrevocably severed from the past and impoverished by a topical and transient agenda. Examining and evaluating Calvin’s understanding of the twofold benefit of the gospel, justification and sanctification, will contribute to a recovery and reassessment of traditional Christian teaching. The subject of justification by grace alone through faith alone has played a large role in the Protestant church’s understanding of the gospel. Whether it will continue to be a meaningful and integral part of the church’s present understanding of the gospel is a crucial question. In order to effectively address the contemporary understanding of the gospel, examining the traditional Protestant view of the Reformation’s greatest theologian is of particular importance. The principal objective of our study is to contribute to a deepened understanding of Calvin’s view of the saving benefits of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this respect, the study is primarily undertaken as a project in the history of Christian doctrine. Calvin’s view is more than one of merely historical interest, however, since it represents an important point of reference for current theological reflection on the gospel. One of the striking features of contemporary theological discussion is a renewed interest in the doctrine of salvation, particularly justification by grace through faith. In recent ecumenical discussion between representatives of Protestant and Roman Catholic communions, considerable attention has been given to whether the historic disagreements between them on the doctrine of justification may no longer apply. A number of important ecumenical documents purport to represent a new, ecumenical consensus on the gospel, particularly on the doctrine of justification. According to the authors of these documents, the great division of the sixteenth century regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ may no longer hold. In addition to these the historical context for Calvin’s theology, it fits best into the category of what Muller terms a “textually sensitive exposition.”

Introduction

11

significant ecumenical dimensions of contemporary discussion, there is also the emergence of what is known popularly as a “new perspective on Paul.” Proponents of a new view of Paul have argued that a fresh reading of the apostle’s writings shows that his doctrine of justification was misunderstood by the Protestant Reformers. In the new perspective’s view of Paul’s gospel, the doctrine of justification is of considerable ecumenical importance; Paul’s doctrine of justification calls for unity rather than division within the community of Christian churches. Perhaps at no time since the Reformation of the sixteenth century has there been greater interest in a fresh consideration of the gospel. A growing body of literature on the doctrine of justification indicates a keen interest in revisiting the historic debates of the sixteenth century. Renewed attention to the Reformers’ understanding of the gospel is undoubtedly of special relevance to these contemporary debates.3 There are two areas in particular where this study’s evaluation of Calvin’s position may contribute to an understanding of the gospel in contemporary ecumenical and theological discussions. First, Calvin’s position on the “twofold grace of God” clarifies in a fruitful way the classical dispute between Protestant and Catholic theology on the doctrine of justification. Though it has not always been adequately appreciated, Calvin’s special emphasis upon the “twofold grace of God” in Christ represents a sustained Protestant answer to the classical Roman Catholic critique of the Reformers’ doctrine of justification. It constitutes an important source for a proper understanding of the historic divergence between Protestant and Roman Catholic teaching. And second, many of the contemporary discussions of justification invariably focus upon the relation between justification and sanctification. Questions have been raised regarding the central importance of justification in our understanding of the gospel. The precise relation between the believer’s free acceptance on the basis of Christ’s saving work (justification) and the renewal of the believer’s life by the Spirit of Christ (sanctification) is also being questioned. Contemporary theology often vacillates between the Scylla of “antinomianism,” which diminishes the necessity of the renewal of life in obedience to God, and the Charybdis of “moralism,” which reduces the gospel to little more than a call to a new way of life. Calvin’s balanced treatment of the “twofold grace of God” was articulated in order to avoid both of these errors in understanding the gospel’s saving benefits. 3 For a survey of the discussion of justification in contemporary theology, see my “Justification: The Ecumenical, Biblical and Theological Dimensions of Current Debates,” in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, ed. A.T.B. McGowan (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 289–327.

12

Introduction

This study begins with a survey of the debates regarding the interpretation of Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God” that have emerged in previous studies of Calvin’s theology. After this introduction to the interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine in the secondary literature, the study treats Calvin’s position in three parts. The first part considers the location of Calvin’s treatment of the “twofold grace of God” within the broader structure of his theology of the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. The second part outlines Calvin’s exposition of the “twofold grace of God,” noting how he distinguishes the two gospel benefits of justification and sanctification, while insisting that they remain inseparable in the life of all believers who are united with Christ through faith and by the work of the Holy Spirit. The third and final part of the study considers several aspects of Calvin’s theology that are illumined by his understanding of the “twofold grace of God.” Though the primary focus throughout is upon Calvin’s particular understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification, the study aims to illustrate how Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” contributes to an understanding of his theology in general.

2. The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies No study of an aspect of Calvin’s theology should ignore the work of previous interpreters. Like many topics in Calvin studies, the “twofold grace of God” has not only been treated from a variety of perspectives but has also received a number of widely divergent interpretations. In the secondary literature on Calvin’s theology, there is a lack of consensus on the place, the importance, and the nature of Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification. This chapter summarizes the important literature on the “twofold grace of God” in order to illustrate this lack of consensus, and to isolate several important questions regarding this doctrine in Calvin’s theology. The survey of previous studies will establish a framework for the subsequent exposition of the “twofold grace of God” in Calvin’s theology. Although our summary will not be exhaustive, it will show that the most important issue in the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God” is Calvin’s view of the relation between the gospel benefits of justification and sanctification. It will also become apparent that divergent interpretations of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” are complicated by their link with broader issues pertaining to the interpretation of his theology. Among these issues, the following are of special importance: Calvin’s understanding of the content or subject matter of Christian theology, the organizational structure of his theology, and the way in which the content and structure of Calvin’s theology are interrelated. Our summary will illustrate how the interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification is often shaped by the general approach interpreters have adopted toward his theology. Consequently, a satisfactory resolution of the relation of justification and sanctification is not possible without some consideration of these broader questions in Calvin studies.

14

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

2.1 General Approaches to the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology Wilhelm Niesel’s appraisal of Calvin studies, which dates to the middle of the twentieth century during a period of renewed interest in Reformed theology stimulated by the rise of neo-orthodoxy, is in some respects still true: Calvin research suffers from the defect that the golden thread which runs through it has not yet been discovered. Certainly we are well informed about this or that individual feature or doctrine; but what is really in question when he writes his Institutes of the Christian Religion, what his governing intention is in constructing his theology, remains as yet unknown to us.1

The history of Calvin studies has more often been marked by conflict than consensus. As a result, it is not a history easily amenable to an outline or summary. In spite of the complexity of the history of Calvin studies, it is possible to discern at least three representative approaches to Calvin’s theology that emerged in the literature through the middle of the twentieth century, when the influence of neo-orthodox or Barthian theology upon the interpretation of Calvin began to wane. These three approaches represent general directions or dominant tendencies in the history of Calvin studies.2 Each of them approaches the theology of Calvin from a particular point of view, and argues that the position adopted provides the interpretive key to the whole of Calvin’s theological program. The first and perhaps most traditional approach to Calvin’s theology isolates a central theme or doctrine, and interprets the whole of Calvin’s thought in its terms. This approach finds the key to Calvin’s theology in one dominant theme. A central idea or motif in Calvin’s thought is regarded as the basis for its various sub-themes. Implicit in this approach is the conviction that Calvin was, in contrast to the other Reformers and to Luther in particular, the author of a theological system whose various aspects constitute an inter-related and inter-connected pattern of ideas. Calvin is approached as a precursor of Reformed orthodoxy, with its alleged interest in 1 Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, trans. H. Knight (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 9. 2 The following outline is not wholly original. For similar surveys of distinct approaches to Calvin’s theology, see Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 9–21; Benjamin Charles Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970), 2; and Eva-Maria Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch: Die Responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 2–7. For a summary of the current state of Calvin studies, see Muller, “Directions in Current Calvin Resarch,” 131–9; and Richard C. Gamble, “Current Trends in Calvin Research, 1982–90,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 91–112.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

15

a deductive and rationally consistent theological system. This approach finds, in its examination of Calvin’s theology, that there is a systematic correlation of all its dogmatic statements with a single, basic principle.3 Within this approach various themes have been designated as the central principle of Calvin’s theology. None of them, however, has enjoyed the popularity of the doctrine of God and its corollary, God’s sovereign predestinating will. This approach, and the designation of the doctrine of God as central to Calvin’s thought, could almost be described as a consensus opinion in the older literature on Calvin’s theology. Its adherents included such notable students of the history of Christian doctrine as Ernst Troeltsch,4 Reinhold Seeberg,5 Otto Ritschl,6 and Hans Emil Weber.7 Each of these interpreters concurred with the judgment that Calvin’s theology, when compared with Luther’s more Christological and existential concern for justification by faith, was dominated by an austere and foreboding emphasis upon the sovereign and omnipotent will of God. Calvin’s theology, as an incipient form of later Reformed orthodoxy, rationalized and objectified Luther’s original insights. In Calvin’s transformation of Luther’s theology, the dominant and central doctrine in his theology became that of predestination, in relation to which justification is a subordinate means in the execution of God’s sovereign counsel. Though the central dogma approach has continued to be a popular one, it has often been challenged as an inappropriate systematizing of Calvin’s theology. Many interpreters of Calvin’s thought have objected to this interpretation and to the designation of the doctrine of God as the central theme in Calvin’s theology.8 The continuing disagreement regarding the central 3 See Richard Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 63–80, for an evaluation of the “central dogma” approach to Calvin and the subsequent emergence of Reformed Scholasticism. Muller distinguishes five general approaches to the relation between “Calvin and the Calvinists,” and argues that the “central dogma” approach inadequately interprets the continuities as well as discontinuities between Calvin’s theology and that of subsequent Reformed theologians in the period of Reformed Scholasticism. 4 The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans. O. Wyon (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1931), 2:581. 5 Text-Book of the History of Doctrines, trans. by C.E. Hay (reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n.d.), 2:407. Cf. his Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 3rd ed. (Basel/Stuttgart: Benno Schwabe & Co., n.d.), 4/2:580ff, for an elaboration of his interpretation of Calvin on predestination. 6 Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 3:165. 7 Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1937), 1/1:240. 8 Erwin Mülhaupt, in his Die Predigt Calvins, Ihre Geschichte, Ihre Form und Ihre Religiösen Grundgedanken (Berlin/Leipzig: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1931), 169ff, has also tried to establish the idea of God’s gracious will as central to Calvin’s theology (169). Some important alternative designations of a central doctrine in Calvin’s theology include those of Alfred Göhler,

16

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

doctrine in Calvin’s thought has led some interpreters to adopt a second approach. Rather than construing Calvin’s theology as a dogmatic system, controlled by a single doctrine or theme, this approach argues that the key to the interpretation of Calvin’s theology lies in its form or method, and not in its doctrinal content. The first and classical proponent of this second approach is Hermann Bauke.9 In his analysis of previous interpretations of Calvin’s theology, Bauke was impressed by the lack of consensus and diverse viewpoints that were represented. For Bauke it was simply not possible to explain this divergence solely in terms of the inadequacy and inaccuracy of previous accounts of Calvin’s theology. Instead of adopting such a solution to explain this phenomenon, he concluded that there must be something peculiar to Calvin’s theology itself which gives rise to this divergence.10 This peculiarity, Bauke concluded, was not to be found in any single doctrine which formed the center of a deductive system, as many previous interpreters supposed, but was to be found in the form of Calvin’s theology. By the form of Calvin’s theology, Bauke referred to its structure and method. This structure and method, now understood as the key to interpreting Calvin’s theology, consisted of three elements: a formal-dialectical rationalism, a complexio oppositorum (“a complex of opposites”), and a formal biblicism.11 Each of these elements, Bauke argued, is a formal characteristic of Calvin’s theology, and does not affect its content. What we find in Calvin’s theology, therefore, is a content compatible with that of Luther’s, but structured and presented in a new and peculiar form. Calvin’s dialectical rationalism, as the first element in the structural formation of his theology, was merely a formal means used by Calvin to relate the themes of his theology in an antithetical manner.12 The second element, the complexio oppositorum, involved his utilization of this formal dialectic to present a series of discrete doctrines which, by the canons of logic, were opposed to

Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1934), 10, who argues that the doctrine of sanctification is the “Schlüssel zum Verständnis der Theologie Calvins”; Walter E. Stuermann, A Critical Study of Calvin’s Concept of Faith (Tulsa, Oklahoma: University of Tulsa, 1952), 378, who states that the “concept of faith is the key doctrine in Calvin’s system of thought”; Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, 190, who concludes that “the unifying principle of Calvin’s thought is the absolute correlation of the Spirit and the Word and the contingent correlation of the Spirit and the diverse manifestations of that Word”; and Charles Partee, “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again,” SCJ 18/2 (1987): 191–99, who suggests that Calvin’s understanding of “union with Christ” is the central theme of his theology. 9 Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung, 1922). 10 Cf. Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins, 7, where Bauke poses the question as to what peculiar characteristic of Calvin’s theology makes such contradictory views possible. 11 Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins, 11ff. 12 Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins, 14.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

17

each other.13 The third element, Calvin’s formal biblicism, referred to the way in which Calvin attempted to provide a synthetic account of all aspects of the biblical witness, whether they were intrinsically susceptible to such synthesis or not. According to Bauke, these three elements represent the structural formation of Calvin’s theology and constitute the distinctive nature of his thought.14 While many interpreters of Calvin’s theology have also noted the importance of its form and method,15 an important proponent of a position similar to that of Bauke is Alexandre Ganoczy.16 Ganoczy has also called attention to the dialectical form of Calvin’s theology, although unlike Bauke, he believes this dialectic is both formal and substantive.17 Calvin’s formal dialectic employs a reasoning method that exhibits precise definition and thematic clarity, but which achieves no genuine resolution of the integral relation between its various themes. Calvin’s substantive dialectic involves his systematic juxtaposition of the divine and the human, the transcendent and the immanent. A primary example of this double dialectic in Calvin’s theology is his inability to provide an ontological mediation for the interaction between God and humanity, an inability expressed formally through the dialectical treatment of the classical two-natures Christology and through the dialectical juxtaposition of justification and sanctification. In his argument for this approach and interpretation, Ganoczy notes that the most important sources for this double dialectic are Calvin’s study of law at Orleans and Bourges, the dialectical method of Montaigu, and the nominal13 Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins, 19. For a similar view, see Henry Jacob Weber, “The Formal Dialectical Rationalism of Calvin,” in Papers of the American Society of Church History, second series, 8 (1928), 40. 14 Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins, 14. Bauke attributes this peculiar form to the influence of Calvin’s French mind. Cf. the dictum of Jacques Pannier, Recherches Sur La Formation Intellectuelle Calvin (Paris: Librairie Alcan, 1931), 55: “[…] le génie est essentiellement le génie même de la race francaise.” Hermann Weber, Die Theologie Calvins, Ihre Innere Systematik im Lichte Struktur-Psychologischer Forschungsmethode (Berlin: Otto Elsner, 1930), draws a similar conclusion. 15 E.g., Richard Stauffer Dieu, la création et la Providence dans la predication de Calvin (Berne: Peter Lang, 1978), 304ff; Francois Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Thought, trans. P. Mairet (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 357ff; Edward A. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 31994 [1952]), 37ff, 219, and 241; John H. Leith, “Calvin’s Theological Method and the Ambiguity in His Theology,” in Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton, ed. F.H. Littel (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962), 112; Ford Lewis Battles, “Calculus Fidei,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, ed. W.H. Neuser, 85; and E. David Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,” in The Context of Contemporary Theology, ed. A.J. McKelway (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974), 44. 16 Calvin, Théologien de l’Église et du Ministère (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1964); and Le Jeune Calvin: Genèse et Évolution de sa Vocation réformatrice (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1966). 17 Calvin, 59.

18

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

ism of John Major.18 Whether or not his confident assertion of these influences is warranted, Ganoczy’s approach emphasizes the importance of Calvin’s formal method for interpreting his theology, and provides some support for the position adopted earlier by Bauke. In spite of the continued influence of these two approaches upon Calvin’s studies, there remains yet a third approach, represented by Niesel, that has attempted to relate more closely the content and form of Calvin’s theology. This approach, which reflects the dominant influence of neoorthodoxy and the theology of Karl Barth upon Calvin studies during the first half of the twentieth century, argues that an understanding of Calvin’s theology requires a more critical examination into its governing intention than the first two approaches. Neither the designation of a central doctrine within a deductive system nor the consideration of formal and methodological issues alone will enable interpreters to discover the peculiar nature of Calvin’s theology. Niesel has summarized this approach and its contribution in the following terms: The problems of his [Calvin’s] theology do not arise from questions of structure nor from those of content, but from the fact that it makes a serious attempt to be theology. This means in Calvin’s doctrine it is a question of the content of all contents—the 18 Calvin, 60 and 67. In his Le Jeune Calvin, 137ff, esp. 179ff, Ganoczy attempts to demonstrate the existence of such a dialectic and to provide a more complete account of various influences which contributed to its makeup. On the general background to Calvin’s thought, see Ganoczy, Le Jeune Calvin; Wendel, Calvin, 15–45; Pannier, La Formation Intellectuelle Calvin; Karl Reuter, Das Grundverständnis der Theologie Calvins, Unter Einbeziehung ihrer geschichtlichen Abhändigkeiten, 1st part (Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963), 9–87; T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), 1–34; and Williston Walker, John Calvin: The Organiser of Reformed Protestantism, 1509–1564 (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), 1–43. On the philosophical background, especially nominalism, see Reuter, Das Grundverständnis, 20ff; Wendel, Calvin, 127ff; Parker, Calvin, 9ff; Henri Bois, La Philosophie de Calvin (Paris: Librairie générale et protestante, 1919), 18ff; Jean Boisset, Sagesse et Sainteté dans la Pensée de Jean Calvin (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959); Armand Aime La Vallee, “Calvin’s Criticism of Scholastic Theology,” Ph.D. diss. (Harvard University, 1967); Thomas F. Torrance, “Intuitive and abstractive knowledge from Duns Scotus to John Calvin,” in Scotismus decursu saeculorum, ed. C. Balic (Romae: Congressus Scotisticus Internationalis, 1968), 4:291–305; and Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2005 [1977]). On Calvin’s debt to humanism, see Reuter, Das Grundverständnis, 55ff; Wendel, Calvin, 27ff; Parker, Calvin, 1–34; Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility,” 43–63; Quirinus Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931); Breen, Christianity and Humanism: Studies in the History of Ideas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 107–30; Peter Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Ereziehungsvereins, 1994), 47–98. For a discussion of the complex issues here, see Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958); idem, “Some Notes on the Theology of Nominalism,” HTR 53 (1960): 47–76; and idem, “Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvin’s Reformation,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. Neuser, 113–54.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

19

living God. The effort to bear witness to Him makes itself felt both in structure and substance. It is impossible for either of these two factors to remain unaffected when the aim is to allow the voice of the living God to be heard through doctrine.19

For Niesel, Calvin’s theology is not so much a system of doctrinal truths arranged deductively in respect to a single theme, as it is a diversified treatment of that which remains finally elusive to categories of thought, the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. At every point in its exposition, Calvin’s theology expounds “in all its fullness and depth the self-revelation of God to which Holy Scripture bears witness.”20 Rather than approaching the form of Calvin’s theology as distinct from its content, Niesel argues that the self-revelation of God in Christ controls both the form and content of his theology. It does this in two primary ways. First, in his analysis of various themes, Calvin repeatedly employs the formula “distinction without separation” in order to denote the Christological content of all theological statements. And second, Calvin attempts to demonstrate the basic coherence of diverse theological themes by referring them to the singular reality of God’s revelation and action in Christ.21 The form of Calvin’s theology is one of a diverse or manifold witness; and this witness is controlled by the endeavor to conform to its object, the being and action of God-in-Christ. This third approach, which is classically represented by Niesel, largely determined the course of study of Calvin’s theology through the mid-twentieth century.22 The issues which this approach often addressed—Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge and revelation of God, the question of natural theology in Calvin’s thought—were stimulated by Niesel’s study and the theological interests of neo-orthodox, Barthian theology. Though aspects of these older approaches to Calvin’s theology are still evident in more recent studies, two significant changes have occurred. These changes in approach stem from a fresh interest in and attention to historical context for a proper interpretation of Calvin’s thought. First, rather than interpreting Calvin through the lens of contemporary theological interests, which was often the case during the period of neo-orthodoxy’s dominance of Calvin studies, students of Calvin’s theology have focused upon the continuities and discontinuities of his theology in relation both to 19 The Theology of Calvin, 19. 20 The Theology of Calvin, 247. 21 The Theology of Calvin, 247–9. 22 E.g., Wilhelm Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1939); Peter Brunner, Vom Glauben bei Calvin (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1925); Paul Jacobs, Prädestination und Verantwortlichkeit bei Calvin (Kasel: Oncken, 1937); T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, American ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959); and Walter Kreck, “Die Eigenart der Theologie Calvins,” in Calvin-Studien 1959, ed. J. Moltmann (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960), 26–42.

20

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

the medieval theological tradition and subsequent trends within Reformed Scholasticism. And second, a number of studies have challenged Niesel’s neo-orthodox interpretation of Calvin, which restricts the knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology to the self-revelation of God in Christ. Though Niesel’s emphasis upon Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God, which is derived from God’s revelation in his Word, has not been rejected outright, these studies maintain that the neo-orthodox interpretation of Calvin’s theology failed to do justice to Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God as Creator. They have raised the question of the extent to which Calvin’s understanding of God as both Creator and Redeemer gives an “extradimension” to his thought that is inadequately accounted for in the neoorthodox interpretation of Calvin. Among those studies that have challenged the reduction of Calvin’s theology to the knowledge of God as Redeemer in Christ, those of Edward Dowey,23 E. David Willis,24 Heiko Oberman,25 and Eva-Maria Faber26 deserve mention. Dowey has argued that the knowledge of God as both Creator and Redeemer constitutes the principal organizing feature of Calvin’s Institutes. This means, with respect to the question of the scope of Calvin’s theology, that Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God the Redeemer presupposes and finds its framework for interpretation within the doctrine of creation.27 Willis and Oberman have suggested that this larger framework has important consequences for the scope of Calvin’s theology and distinguishes it from that, for example, of Luther.28 Faber has argued that Calvin’s theology does not dialectically oppose God’s transcendence and human responsibility or engagement with God, but articulates a comprehensive view of God’s works as Creator and Redeemer. According to Faber, Calvin’s doctrine of creation undergirds his emphasis upon the meaningful relationship and mediation between God and humanity in creation and redemption. Though none of these interpreters argues that Calvin affirms an unqualified natural theology, which is separated from a theology of God’s Word in 23 The Knowledge of God. 24 Calvin’s Catholic Christology (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966). 25 “Die ‘Extra’-Dimension in der Theologie Calvins,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, Festgabe Hanns Rückert (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1966), 323–56. Also cf. Gerhard Ebeling, “Cognitio Dei et hominis,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, 271–322. 26 Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, esp. 1–7, 39–86. 27 The Knowledge of God, 238–9. In his analysis and understanding of the structure of Calvin’s Institutes, Dowey follows the lead of J. Köstlin, “Calvins Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1868): 6–62, 410–86. Köstlin’s study still remains the single most comprehensive analysis of the structure of the Institutes. 28 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology; Oberman, “Die ‘Extra’-Dimension in der Theologie Calvins.”

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

21

Christ,29 their interpretations of Calvin’s theology, especially his doctrine of creation in relation to redemption, constitute an important correction to the reductionistic interpretation that prevailed among earlier, neo-orthodox interpreters.30

2.2 The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies When one turns to the secondary literature on the doctrine of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology, one can only be impressed by the strikingly different interpretations it has evoked and continues to evoke. There is no consensus on the place, the importance, and the nature of the doctrine of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s thought. Despite the relative neglect of this subject, it remains disputed in Calvin studies, like such oft-discussed subjects as predestination, Scripture, and the knowledge of God. That Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” is disputed is not as significant as the extent to which disagreements about Calvin’s view often exhibit important links with the three outlined approaches to Calvin’s 29 For a summary of the older debate regarding general revelation and natural theology in Calvin, which was stimulated by the theology of Karl Barth and neo-orthodoxy, see Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology, trans. Peter Fraenkel (London: 1946); Peter Barth, “Das Problem der natürlichen Theologie bei Calvin,” TEH 18 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1935); Gunter Gloede, Theologia naturalis bei Calvin (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1935); and Dowey, The Knowledge of God, Appendix III, “The Barth-Brunner Controversy on Calvin.” See Chapter 3, footnote 44, for a reference to a number of more recent treatments of the question whether Calvin affirmed a natural theology, however modest in scope or importance. 30 One of the fruits of this third approach to Calvin’s theology is the spirited debate in more recent literature regarding the relation of Reformed Scholasticism to Calvin. Whereas the neoorthodox interpretation of Calvin tends to pit him against the “Calvinists” of the next period, which witnessed the emergence of a Reformed Scholasticism, recent interpreters, such as Richard Muller, have persuasively argued against this “Calvin against the Calvinists” thesis. According to Muller, there is a substantial continuity in theological content between Calvin and subsequent Reformed orthodoxy, though the Scholastic theologians of the later period employed the Scholastic method more self-consciously and consistently than did Calvin. For representative presentations of Muller’s critique of the neo-orthodox interpretation of Calvin, see, e.g., his After Calvin, 25–102, and his The Unaccommodated Calvin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), esp. 3–17 passim. Muller’s title, The Unaccommodated Calvin, is aimed at interpretations of Calvin that “accommodate” his thought to later theological debates rather than interpret it “in the context” of the sixteenth century. For a sampling of more recent studies, which address and confirm significant continuities between Calvin’s theology and his medieval predecessors, see Carl R. Trueman, “Calvin and Calvinism,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 225–44; Christoph Strohm, “Methodology in Discussion of ‘Calvin and Calvinism’,” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Genève: Librairie Droz S.A., 2004), 65–105; Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); and David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

22

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

theology. The general approach that interpreters have taken to Calvin’s theology has often had important implications for the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God.” Similarly, positions taken on Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” are important to a resolution of the dispute over Calvin’s theological perspective. There is an important connection between the issues raised by general approaches to Calvin and those raised by interpretations of his doctrine of justification and sanctification that is a noteworthy feature in the secondary literature on Calvin’s theology. To illustrate this connection, it is necessary to survey briefly the way Calvin’s position has been characterized in previous studies. This summary of previous interpretations of the “twofold grace of God” will not be exhaustive.31 In this survey, we will simply identify the most important questions posed in the literature on Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification. After identifying these questions, we will also illustrate how these questions often intersect with general approaches that have been taken toward Calvin’s theology. It is no simple task to summarize the important questions posed in the secondary literature on the doctrine of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology. With the single exception of Tjarko Stadtland’s work, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung bei Calvin, the literature on this subject consists primarily of a number of short studies that individually address a limited range of interpretive questions.32 Nevertheless, a number of questions have invariably occupied the attention of these studies. They are: 1) the question of the place and importance of the doctrine of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology; 2) the question of the precise relation between justification and sanctification; 3) the question of the relation between Calvin’s understanding of “union with Christ” and his “forensic” definition of justification; 4) the question of the nature and relation of law and gospel; and 5) the question of the so-called “practical syllogism” (syllogismus practicus) in Calvin’s theology. 31 For surveys of the history of interpretation of this doctrine, see Willy Lüttge, Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins und Ihre Bedeutung fur seine Frommigkeit (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1909), 1–10; Tjarko Stadtland, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung bei Calvin (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 21–6; and Mark A. Garcia, “Life in Christ: The Function of Union with Christ in the Unio—Duplex Gratia Structure of Calvin’s Soteriology,” Ph.D. diss. (University of Edinburgh: 2004), 9–29. Stadtland’s survey provides an especially striking account of the diversity of interpretive positions in the secondary literature. However, his study does not address the larger questions of interpretation which we are posing in this chapter. The same holds true for Garcia’s study, which focuses more narrowly upon Calvin’s view of union with Christ and the twofold grace of God in Calvin’s Romans commentary, his sacramental theology, and his polemic against the Lutheran theologian, Osiander. 32 Stadtland, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, 11, provides a bibliographical argument for the thesis that this subject has been neglected in Calvin studies.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

23

1. The question of the place and importance of the doctrine of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology has often arisen in discussions comparing Calvin and Luther. Particularly among those who interpret Calvin as the systematician of the Reformation, the suggestion has often been made that justification occupies a relatively less important place in Calvin’s theology than in that of Luther. Some have argued that justification does not stand at the center of Calvin’s theology and interpretation of the Christian life, at least not to the extent that is true of Luther. Otto Ritschl has argued that, in contrast to Luther, Calvin’s theology is systematically organized in terms of his doctrine of predestination. Consequently, justification has become a subordinate “means” in Calvin’s exposition of the execution and accomplishment of God’s predestinating will.33 Justification is no longer the lively center of his thought; it has been domesticated and located within an objective and rational system of doctrine, as one theme among many. Or, as Hans Emil Weber describes it, the place and importance of justification in Calvin’s thought is circumscribed to such an extent that it is a mere “manifestation” of a more basic idea—God’s all-determining counsel.34 Though the majority of interpreters do not share this judgment, it raises the important question whether Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” has relegated the doctrine of justification to a less significant place in his theology. 2. Perhaps the single most controversial question, however, in the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God” is that of the relation between justification and sanctification. This issue is directly related to the question of the link between Calvin’s understanding of “union with Christ” and his “forensic” definition of justification. It also is connected to the nature and relation of law and gospel. In several respects, these questions are but forms of the basic question of the relation between justification and sanctification. The question of the relation between justification and sanctification continues to elicit a number of disparate interpretations. Some have suggested that Calvin simply juxtaposes justification and sanctification and provides no satisfactory account of their unity.35 Others have suggested that he so closely relates them that he is unable to provide an adequate reason for continuing to distinguish between them.36 Still others have suggested that 33 Dogmengeschichte, 186. 34 Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 244. 35 H.E. Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 239; Mülhaupt, Die Predigt Calvins, 152; Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte, 199–200; Köstlin, “Calvins Institution nach Form und Inhalt,” 465; Ganoczy, Calvin, 95ff; and Paul Wernle, Der Evangelische Glaube, Nach Den Haupschriften Der Reformation, vol. 3, Calvin (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1919), 254. Mülhaupt’s statement, Die Predigt Calvins, 152, is representative: “So bleibt es beim Problem: Rechtfertigung und Erneuerung, bei einem Nebeneinander.” 36 Lüttge, Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins, 27, 43, 84ff; Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 384–5.

24

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

Calvin’s explanation of both their distinction and their inseparability is consistent with his general theological perspective.37 Various evaluations have been made of Calvin’s decision to treat sanctification before justification in Book III of the Institutes. While it is generally acknowledged that this order speaks to the relation between justification and sanctification, there is no corresponding agreement of a substantive nature on its rationale and theological significance. 3. In their discussion of Calvin’s understanding of justification and sanctification, some interpreters have also raised the question of the relation between Calvin’s understanding of the believer’s “mystical union” with Christ and his “forensic” or juridical definition of justification. It is generally acknowledged that, according to Calvin, there is an intimate connection between justification—the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ—and this union with Christ. What is disputed is again the nature of this relation. Some have argued that Calvin inadequately relates these two themes and that, if he had done so, he could no longer have retained his sharp distinction between a doctrine of imputed righteousness and a doctrine of the believer’s intimate or “mystical” union with Christ.38 There is a tension between Calvin’s treatment of justification in terms of imputation—a juridical category, denoting a new relation of acceptance before God—and his claim that this is made possible by, or is one aspect of, one’s union with Christ, the other being sanctification or repentance. If justification depends upon union with Christ, it cannot be wholly defined in juridical categories. To this argument, other interpreters have responded by asserting a basic harmony between these two themes, between the claim that one’s guilt must be overlooked if one is to be received into favor with God, and the claim that this is inseparably related to one’s union with Christ.39 Calvin’s understanding of union with Christ does not mitigate his view of imputed righteousness, for these are two inseparably, albeit not causally, related aspects of the same divine grace and action. 37 Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 127ff; Göhler, Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung, 106; Wendel, Calvin, 256ff; Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin, 66ff; R.S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 17–27; Werner Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 275ff; Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, 239–41; and Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 437–51. 38 Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 385. Cf. Emile Doumerge, Jean Calvin, les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. 4: La pensée religieuse de Calvin (Lausanne: Georges Bridel et Cie, 1910), 275, where, in attempting to refute Lüttge’s suggestion of a contradiction here, he himself confuses the issue by subsuming mystical union under justification. 39 Wendel, Calvin, 258; Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft, 58ff; Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 127ff; Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes, 265ff; Simon Pieter Dee, Het Geloofsbegrip Van Calvijn (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1918), 190; and Mark A. Garcia, “Life in Christ,” 225–8.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

25

4. The question of the connection between law and gospel in Calvin’s theology is linked to the relation between justification and sanctification as well as the relation between justification and union with Christ. While it is not wholly congruent with either of these questions, it concerns Calvin’s understanding of the nature, the distinction, and the unity of law and gospel. On the one hand, Calvin has been criticized by Lutheran interpreters for allowing a “third use” of the law in connection with sanctification, a use which is said to be inconsistent with a proper understanding of the gospel and of justification and sanctification.40 According to these interpreters, Calvin’s strict distinction between justification and sanctification, and his endorsement of a positive function for the law in the Christian life, together form a disjunctive view of justification and sanctification. Sanctification becomes a legalistic obedience to the law rather than a free and spontaneous response to the forgiveness of God.41 On the other hand, interpreters have argued that Calvin fails to establish a basic unity between law and gospel. These authors object, not to his ascription of a positive function to the law in sanctification, but to his inability to demonstrate a genuine unity between the righteousness demanded in the law and the righteousness Calvin ascribes to justifying faith.42 There are several issues, therefore, that have been raised by interpreters on the relation of law and gospel in Calvin’s theology, issues which relate to his understanding of the doctrine of justification and sanctification. These issues are Calvin’s understanding of the 40 E.g., Wernle, Der Evangelische Glaube, 254ff; Thomas Coates, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification,” CTM 34 (1963): 333–4; Werner Elert, Law and Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 44–8; Gerhard Ebeling, “Reflexions on the Doctrine of the Law,” in his Word and Faith, trans. J.W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 248–81; and Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics, vol. 1, Foundations, ed. W.H. Lazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 122–3. Elert and Thielicke are especially sensitive to Barth’s extension of Calvin’s treatment of law and gospel, expressed in his formula of the “law as a form of the gospel.” Cf. Karl Barth, “Gospel and Law,” in Community, State, and Church, ed. Will Herberg (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1960), 71–100. For a recent, more sympathetic reading of Calvin’s doctrine of justification, which argues that it is compatible with Luther’s view, see Karla Wübbenhorst, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification: Variations on a Lutheran Theme,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 99–118. 41 E.g., Wernle, Der Evangelische Glaube, 254ff; Elert, Law and Gospel, 44–8; Seeberg, Lehrbuch Der Dogmengeschichte, 4/2:566; and H.E. Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 239. Cf. Kenneth E. Kirk, The Vision of God, The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1931), 426; and Stadtland, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, 190ff. Stadtland believes that Calvin provides no ultimate account or resolution of the tension between law and gospel. 42 E.g., Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 65–7, 116–7; and Arthur C. Cochrane, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962), 190–1.

26

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

distinction between law and gospel, the nature of their relation and unity, the relative priority of law and gospel, and the significance of the law for linking his doctrines of creation and redemption.43 5. The final question of importance which has emerged in the literature on Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification is that of the socalled “practical syllogism” (syllogismus practicus).44 Though this question has traditionally been associated with Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, it is also relevant to his view of the relation between justification and sanctification. The so-called “practical syllogism” suggests some relation between good works or sanctification and establishing the certainty of salvation, something ordinarily ascribed by Calvin to faith. With respect to Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification, the question is whether sanctification also plays a role in assuring one of salvation. And if it does, what sort of role does it play, and how is this role consistent with Calvin’s treatment of the relation between justification and sanctification? Calvin’s understanding, therefore, of the relation between justification and sanctification—of their distinction and inseparability—is of significance for resolving in part the dispute over the so-called “practical syllogism.” No consensus or satisfactory account of this significance has yet been achieved.

43 On this latter issue, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 221ff. For comprehensive treatments of Calvin’s understanding of law and gospel, see Ira John Hesselink, “Calvin’s Concept and Use of the Law,” inaugural diss. (Basel, 1961), esp. chapter 7; idem, “Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law? Calvin’s Understanding of the Relationship,” in Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, ed. Robert V. Schnucker (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988), 13–50; and Ralph Roger Sundquist, “The Third Use of the Law in the Thought of Calvin: An Interpretation and Evaluation,” diss. (Columbia University, 1970). 44 The whole subject of the so-called syllogismus practicus in Calvin and in later Calvinism has been much discussed, particularly in connection with Max Weber’s thesis about the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. On the Weber thesis, see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (New York: Scribner’s, 1958); and Robert W. Green, ed., Protestantism, Capitalism, and Social Science: The Weber Thesis Controversy, 2nd ed. (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1975). On the so-called syllogismus practicus in Calvin’s theology, see Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 169ff; idem, “Syllogismus Practicus?,” in Aus Theologie Und Geschichte Der Reformierten Kirche, Festgabe für E.P. Muller-Erlangen (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1933), 158–79; George Klingenburg, Das Verhältnis Calvins zu Butzer untersucht auf Grund der wirtschafts-ethischen Bedeutung beider Reformatoren (Bonn: Carl George, 1912), 64–77; Randall C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 188–203; Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 446–7; and idem, “Johannes Calvin: Theologe und Prediger des Lebens aus Heilsgewissheit,” in Theologen des 16. Jahrhunderts, ed. Martin H. Jung and Peter Walter (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002), 227–43.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

27

2.3 The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology In the literature that specifically treats Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification, the interpretive questions that we have identified are generally acknowledged. What is not often appreciated is the connection between these questions and some of the broader issues pertaining to the interpretation of Calvin’s theology.45 Among advocates of the general approaches to Calvin’s theology that we outlined earlier, Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” is cited as an illustration of what characterizes his theology. Among those who have adopted the first approach, which identifies the center of Calvin’s theology with his doctrine of predestination, the doctrine of justification and sanctification is relegated to a subordinate place within Calvin’s theology. Representatives of this approach maintain that, since the sovereign and predestinating will of God is the organizing principle of Calvin’s theology, justification has lost its decisive religious and theological meaning. Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” is subordinated to and derived from the governing theme of God’s sovereign predestination.46 In contrast to Luther’s Christological point of departure and his concomitant focus upon justification, Calvin’s theology is a rational and objective system, which treats justification merely as a manifestation of a more basic reality, predestination.47 For those who adopt this approach, the subject of justification and sanctification is of interest only as it exemplifies the transformation of Luther’s insights into an orthodox theological system. Nowhere is the connection between general approaches to Calvin’s theology and specific interpretations of the doctrine of justification and sanctification more evident than in the respective approaches of Bauke and Ganoczy on the one hand, and Niesel on the other. For example, both Bauke and Ganoczy argue that justification and sanctification are separated and juxtaposed in Calvin’s theology. For these interpreters, the juxtaposition of justification and sanctification demonstrates the general character of Calvin’s theology—its dialectical form. In his treatment of justification and sanctification, Calvin exhibits the peculiar form of his theology with its dialectic of unresolved themes, its juxtaposition of incompatible ideas, and its sharply disjunctive qualities.48 Therefore, Ganoczy adduces Calvin’s 45 This is also true of Stadtland’s work, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, despite its otherwise comprehensive treatment of the genesis of Calvin’s doctrine. 46 E.g., Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte, 166ff. 47 H.E. Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, 244. 48 According to Bauke, Die Probleme der Theologie Calvins, 98 and 107, it is the form, not the substance of Calvin’s position which distinguishes him from Luther. Cf. Die Probleme der

28

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

doctrine of justification and sanctification as a clear illustration of the formal and substantive dialectic that characterizes his theology. Calvin’s formal dialectic is exhibited in the way he juxtaposes justification and sanctification. And Calvin’s substantive dialectic is reflected in the way he opposes the divine and human factors in his doctrine of justification.49 Consistent with his general approach, Niesel argues against those who restrict the importance of the doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” by treating it as a subordinate theme as well as those who find Calvin dialectically juxtaposing justification and sanctification. Niesel argues that the key to the interpretation of this doctrine is to be found, not in some governing principle such as God’s sovereign will or in the dialectical form of Calvin’s theology, but in Calvin’s Christological point of departure: The teaching of Calvin that justification and sanctification are two aspects of the same process in our lives, and yet are not to be confused, has nothing at all to do with his gifts for dialectic as has been supposed; but rather it is deeply rooted in the facts of spiritual experience. It is an indication that in his theology he is concerned to exalt the Mediator Jesus Christ. In this doctrine of justification and sanctification we are not simply faced by the general question: God and man; rather the fact is that here as elsewhere we have to do with the God revealed in flesh.50

In Niesel’s approach the question of the relation between justification and sanctification—and of the relation between justification and union with Christ, between law and gospel—is answered by an analysis of their common and unifying theme, the reality of God’s grace in Christ. According to Niesel, the only adequate resolution of the question of justification and sanctification focuses on the self-revelation of God in Christ. That selfrevelation is the interpretive key to questions regarding the form and content of Calvin’s theology. In each of these interpretations we find a particular position on the doctrine of justification and sanctification that is consistent with the general approach adopted toward Calvin’s theology. Though none addresses all the important questions summarized in the preceding, there is a general acknowledgment that this doctrine is of special importance to their understanding of Calvin’s theology. Each cites this doctrine in support of the approach adopted and argues that it is an example of a general phenomenon Theologie Calvins, 76ff, where Bauke cites Calvin’s dialectical treatment of “religion” and “morality” as one example of this formal characteristic of his theology. 49 Calvin, 81ff. Here, especially in his treatment of justification and sanctification, Ganoczy believes he detects the unfortunate influence of late medieval nominalism. Faber’s study, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, represents a sustained rebuttal of the claims of interpreters of Calvin like Bauke and Ganoczy, who dialectically oppose God’s sovereignty and human responsbility in Calvin’s understanding of the relations between God and humanity. 50 The Theology of Calvin, 138–9.

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

29

in Calvin’s theology. These approaches and their corresponding interpretations of the doctrine of justification and sanctification confirm the importance of several questions that have arisen concerning this doctrine. Is this doctrine a subordinate theme in Calvin’s theology, which is deduced from a starting point in God’s predestinating will? Or is it one theme among many, each of which bears witness to the revelation of God in Christ? Does Calvin dialectically juxtapose justification and sanctification? Or is his treatment of their relation an instance of expounding two distinct yet inseparable aspects of a single reality, the grace of God in Christ? And if it is the latter, is his understanding of this doctrine exhausted by reference to the self-revelation of God in Christ? Or is there an “extra-dimension” to Calvin’s theology, his doctrine of creation, which affords a more comprehensive horizon within which to interpret his view of the grace of God and the relation of law and gospel? Each of these questions bears on the interpretation of the doctrine of justification and sanctification as well as the determination of a proper approach to Calvin’s theology. They confirm the representative significance of the doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” in relation to a number of broader issues in the interpretation of Calvin’s theology.

2.4 Summary Our study of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” will be undertaken against the background of these general issues in studies of Calvin’s theology. We will begin with an account of the place, the importance, and the nature of this doctrine in Calvin’s theology. This account will include a treatment of the important questions that have been posed in the literature and that we have summarized. The implications of our findings for an interpretation of Calvin’s theology will also be explored. Since the interpretation of this doctrine has often been shaped by the general approach interpreters have adopted toward Calvin’s theology, our study will consider some of the systematic implications of its analysis for resolving the dispute over Calvin’s theology. It will raise the question whether Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification actually supports the position of these interpreters and the approach they represent. The examination of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God,” therefore, will be undertaken, not only to resolve the dispute over its interpretation, but also to resolve the dispute over its significance for an understanding of and approach to Calvin’s theology. In order to accomplish this purpose, the first part of our study will consist of an exposition of the theological context and locus of the “twofold grace of God” in Calvin’s theology. The second and most important part of

30

The “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin Studies

our study will consider the crucial issues of the nature and the relation of justification and sanctification. In the third part of our study, we will explore some of the systematic implications of this analysis to related issues. On the basis of our exposition of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” we will consider its implications for his view of the church and sacraments, law and gospel, and the so-called “practical syllogism” (syllogismus practicus).

PART ONE

THE PLACE OF “THE TWOFOLD GRACE OF GOD” WITHIN CALVIN’S THEOLOGY

3. The “Twofold Grace of God” Within the Structure of Calvin’s Theology Part One The “Twofold Grace of God” Within Calvin’s Theology It is characteristic of Calvin’s theology, especially as represented in his Institutes, that few of its topics can be understood in isolation from their larger context. This is also true for Calvin’s treatment of the “twofold grace of God.” In the explicit structure of the Institutes, the “twofold grace of God” is treated primarily in Book III which bears the title: “The way in which we receive the grace of Christ: What benefits come to us from it, and what effects follow.”1 As this title makes clear, Calvin intends his discussion of the “twofold grace of God” to fall within his exposition of the way in which the grace of God in Christ is appropriated, and to be an account of its twofold benefit (fructus). Before undertaking a direct analysis of this double grace within its immediate setting, it is important to establish its place within the broader structure of Calvin’s theology.2 What is the theological setting of this subject and its treatment, without which it remains unintelligible? In other words, what does Calvin’s treatment of the “twofold grace of God” presuppose, and what is its connection with what precedes and follows it within the overall structure of his theology?3 Though this question has been 1 III (OS 4.1): “De modo percipiendae Christi gratiae, et qui inde fructus nobis proveniant, et qui effectus consequantur.” The 1559 Latin edition of Calvin’s Institutes will be my primary source throughout this study, since it represents Calvin’s classic and normative exposition of his theology. Reference will also be made to his commentaries and sermons where they contribute to an understanding of any given subject. When referring to the Institutes, I will cite the reference by book, chapter, and section. For example, “I.i.1” refers to the Institutes, Book I, Chapter i, Section 1. For a discussion of the relation beween Calvin’s Institutes, commentaries, and sermons, see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 101–17; and Elsie Anne McKee, “Exegesis, Theology, and Development in Calvin’s Institutio: A Methodological Suggestion,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. E. McKee and B. Armstrong (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), 154–72. Muller and McKee properly argue that the Institutes do not stand alone as a systematic theology, but elaborate topically upon matters that arose out of Calvin’s exegetical work in his commentaries. 2 The importance of this question of the structure of Calvin’s theology and the relation of its aspects is confirmed by Calvin’s own efforts, in the various editions of the Institutes, to achieve a satisfactory resolution of it. Cf. his illuminating comment in Iohannes Calvinus Lectori (OS 3.6): “[…] sequidem religionis summam omnibus partibus sic mihi complexus esse videor, et eo quoque ordine digessisse, ut siquis eam recte tenuerit, ei non sit difficile statuere et quid potissimum quaerere in Scriptura, et quem in scopum quicquid in ea continetur referre debeat.” 3 At various transitional points in the Institutes, Calvin indicates his interest in this question by referring to the locus of a particular subject or to the ordo recte docendi. Cf., e.g., I.vi.1 (OS

34

Part One

touched upon by previous interpreters and has been the subject of some dispute, insufficient attention has generally been given to this theological setting and its significance.4 By providing an answer to this question, this part of our study will suggest an interpretive context for the discussion of the “twofold grace of God” that is our primary interest.

3.1 The Knowledge of God and Ourselves Throughout the successive editions of his Institutes, there is one aspect of Calvin’s summary of the Christian faith that remains unchanged: his conviction concerning what constitutes its starting point and basic focus (scopus). While his analysis of the nature and division of this knowledge undergoes expansion and clarification, Calvin consistently begins by telling his reader that “nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and ourselves.” But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern. In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he “lives and moves.” For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being is nothing but subsistence in the one God. Then, by these benefits, shed like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as by rivulets to the spring itself. Indeed, our very poverty better discloses the infinitude of benefits reposing in God.5

The importance of this opening remark on Christian wisdom (sapientia) cannot be over-estimated, since it lays the foundation for all that will follow in the Institutes. This correlative knowledge of God and ourselves comprises the whole subject matter of Calvin’s theology.6 3.61); II.i.10 (OS 3.240); II.vi.4 (OS 3.325); II.vii.4 (OS 3.330); II.viii.4 (OS 3.346); III.iii.1 (OS 4.55–6); III.xix.1 (OS 4.282); III.xix.15 (OS 4.294); III.xxv.3 (OS 4.434); IV.i.1 (OS 5.1); IV.vii.19 (OS 5.122); IV.x.6 (OS 5.168); IV.xii.1 (OS 5.212). 4 As noted in the previous chapter, the major studies of this doctrine in Calvin’s theology (Stadtland and Garcia) provide little account of this theological context. The same holds true for the relatively brief studies of Calvin’s doctrine of justification by Willy Lüttge (Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins) and Wilhelm-Albert Hauck, Calvin und die Rechtfertigung (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1938). 5 I.i.1 (OS 3.31). The first part of this statement reads: “Tota fere sapientiae nostrae summa, quae vera demum ac solida sapientia censeri debeat, duabus partibus constat, Dei cognitione et nostri.” This portion of the statement, which represents a slight revision of the wording of the 1536 edition of the Institutes, first appears in the 1539 edition and in all subsequent editions. See Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 18ff, for a general discussion of this passage, of its importance for Calvin’s theology, and of the revisions that it underwent. 6 Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 18–24 passim; and Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

35

It is important to note a few salient features of Calvin’s understanding of this knowledge of God and ourselves.7 The first is Calvin’s insistence that this knowledge derives from a single source in the revelation and Word of God. We know God and ourselves, according to Calvin, only insofar as God makes himself known to us by accommodating (attemperans) himself to human capacity.8 This means that Calvin’s concept of the knowledge of God and ourselves is wholly oriented to God’s revelation through the Word, and proscribes any attempt to overstep the limits of God’s own witness concerning himself. Calvin is convinced that looking outside God’s revelation of himself would inescapably lead to speculation (speculatio) about God’s being-in-himself and to the fabrication of an idol. Since God is “the sole and proper witness of himself” (Deus ipse solus est de se idoneus testis),9 Calvin asserts that we must “willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself,” and “conceive him to be as he reveals himself to us (permittemus autem si et talem concipiemus ipsum qualem se nobis patefacit) without inquiring about him elsewhere than from his Word.”10 Whenever this rule is violated and the human mind succumbs to its natural propensity to go outside the parameters of God’s self-witness, it ineluctably becomes the “fabricator” of an idol.11 Whatever else must be said about Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of God and ourselves, this fundamental feature must 7 Besides those of Dowey and Parker, there are a number of older and more recent studies of Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God. See, e.g., Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith; P. Lobstein, “La Connaissance religieuse d’apres Calvin,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 42 (1909), 53–110; Benjamin B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,” in Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), 29–130; T.A. Noble, “Our Knowledge of God According to John Calvin,” EQ 54 (1982): 2–13; Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 117–31; and Peter Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, esp. 99–201. 8 I.xiii.1 (OS 3.109). Cf. Comm. Dan 3:3–7 (CO 40.620): “Deus enim non potest apprehendi humano sensu: sed necesse est ut se nobis patefaciat verbo suo, et quemadmodum ad nos descendit, ita etiam vicissum nos atollamur in coelum.” Also cf. II.x.6 (OS 3.407); II.xi.13 (OS 3.435–6); Comm. John 3:12 (CO 47.61); Comm. Rom 1:19 (CO 49.23); Comm. Acts 17:24 (CO 48.412). For treatments of Calvin’s emphasis upon the “accommodated” character of God’s revelation, and its relation to the theme of “accommodation” in Christian tradition, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 3–17; David F. Wright, “Calvin’s ‘Accommodation’ Revisited,” in Calvin as Exegete, ed. Peter De Klerk (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995), 171–90; idem, “Calvin’s Accommodating God,” in Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997), 3– 19; and Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, 184–6. 9 I.xi.1 (OS 3.88). Cf. I.ii.2 (OS 3.36). 10 I.xiii.21 (OS 3.136). Cf. I.iv.3 (OS 3.42): “[…] true religion ought to be conformed to God’s will as to a universal rule; […] God ever remains like himself, and is not a specter or phantasm to be transformed according to anyone’s whim.” 11 According to Calvin, whenever the human mind strays from the given revelation of God it becomes a “labyrinth” and the fashioner of an idol. Cf., e.g., I.xi.8 (OS 3.96): “[…] hominis ingenium perpetuam, ut ita loquar, esse idolorum fabricam.” Also cf. I.v.2 (OS 3.56–7); I.xiii.21 (OS 3.137); Comm. Acts 7:41 (CO 48.154); Comm. John 6:19 (CO 47.136).

36

Part One

be borne in mind: the knowledge of God and ourselves, which constitutes the sum of all genuine and true Christian wisdom, is a knowledge given to us by God himself through his Word. To contemplate God from out of ourselves and our own resources is to risk fashioning an idol of our own imagination and rejecting through ingratitude what God graciously offers to us.12 A second feature of Calvin’s understanding of this knowledge, implicit within the first, is his claim that God’s essence (essentia) is incomprehensible to us, and that our knowledge of him specifically concerns his being and action toward us (erga nos). With this claim, Calvin chiefly endeavours to distinguish his understanding of the knowledge of God from that of the Scholastics and philosophers with whom he was familiar. Since God is his own witness, and since he witnesses to himself in a manner accommodated to our limited capability, our knowledge of him refers, not to his being-inhimself, but to his being-toward-us. Therefore, while Calvin does use the terms “immensity,” “spirituality,” and “simplicity” on occasion to refer to God’s essence, he does so with great caution and consistently refrains from examining their meaning in depth.13 When they are employed, they function as boundaries that remind us that God’s essence remains incomprehensible, and that he is the infinite and self-existent source of all his works. Rather than admitting inquiry that would investigate God’s essence apart from his revelation, Calvin disclaims it as a form of bold curiosity and repeatedly directs us to God’s works, to the “near and familiar” manner in which he communicates himself to us.14 We are not to concern ourselves with God “as he is in himself, but as he is toward us.”15 Since all genuine knowledge of God is born from his Word to us, it presumes both our receptivity to his 12 Cf. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 105: “Calvin is not saying merely that there is no knowledge of God apart from Christ. His Christological accent is rather that since God has fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ it is unnecessary or ungrateful to seek him elsewhere. Whether or not God reveals himself outside of Christ is of secondary, because of abstract, importance to Calvin; the point is that God has revealed himself fully in Christ and that is all men need for salvation and the enjoyment of the blessing of God.” 13 See, e.g., I.xiii.2 (OS 3.108–9); I.v.10 (OS 3.54); I.xiv.21 (OS 3.171); III.xx.40–1 (OS 4.349–51). Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 4ff, provides a thorough treatment of this issue. 14 I.v.9 (OS 3.53): “[…] in suis operibus contemplemur quibus se propinquum nobis familiaremque reddit, ac quodammodo communicat.” For Calvin such curiosity is innate, yet it leads us away from the only knowledge of God possible to us, that which comes from God’s making himself accessible to us by way of accommodating our weakness. Cf. Comm. Rom 1:22 (CO 49.25): “Nemo enim fuit, qui non voluerit Dei maiestatem sub captum suum includere: ac talem Deum facere qualem percipere posse suopte sensu. Non discitur, inquam, haec temeritas in scholis, sed nobis ingenita ex utero (ut ita loquar) nobiscum prodit.” Also cf. Serm. 2 Sam 6:2 (SC 1.135); Serm. Job 33:1–7 (CO 35.52). 15 I.x.2 (OS 3.86): “[…] non quis sit apud se, sed qualis erga nos.” Cf. I.ii.2 (OS 3.35); III.ii.6 (OS 4.13).

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

37

use of means appropriate to our capacity and an awareness that those means reveal what he desires to be toward us.16 Unlike the “cold” (frigida) and unfruitful knowledge of so much Scholastic theology that inquires curiously about God’s being, faithful knowledge of God is of a “practical” nature since it focuses on God’s relation to us and our relation to him.17 This emphasis upon the practical nature of the knowledge of God predominates in Calvin’s polemic with medieval Scholastic theology. For him the theology of the schoolmen amounts to cold speculation about God’s being, which neglects the intrinsic relation between the knowledge of God and a proper honoring of him.18 Calvin eschews such theology’s “troublesome and perplexed disputations” and its “delight in speculation;”19 he asserts that the “rule of godliness” proscribes “speculating more deeply than is expedient.”20 As the following characteristic comment indicates, Calvin particularly objected to the unfruitful character of Scholastic theology’s inquiry in respect to God’s essence: This is the definition of Christian wisdom, to know what is good or expedient, not to torture the mind with empty subtleties and speculations. For the Lord does not want his believers to employ themselves fruitlessly in learning what is of no profit. From this you may gather what you should think of the Sorbonnist theology, to which you may devote your whole life without gaining any more edification than from the demonstrations of Euclid […]. For “Scripture is useful,” as Paul says, but there you will find nothing but cold chop-logic (frigidas leptologias).21

16 Comm. Acts 3:13, 14 (CO 48.68); Comm. Acts 7:30 (CO 48.144–5); Comm. Acts 7:32 (CO 48.146); Comm. 1 John 3:2 (CO 55.331–2). 17 Comm. John 1:14 (CO 47.15): “[…] practica magis quam speculativa eius notitia.” Cf. Comm. John 1:3 (CO 47.4); Comm. John 1:49 (CO 47.36); Comm. John 10:36 (CO 47.253); Comm. 1 John 2:27 (CO 55.328). For a treatment of Calvin’s appraisal of Scholastic theology, see Armand Aime La Vallee, “Calvin’s Criticism of Scholastic Theology.” La Vallee’s study of Calvin concludes that Calvin’s relation to medieval Scholasticism is more complex than his critical rhetoric might suggest. For a recent discussion of Calvin’s criticism of Scholastic theology, see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 39–61. Muller argues that Calvin’s criticisms are directed at a particular strand of late medieval Scholasticism (contemporary theologians of the Sorbonne), and that Calvin remained significantly indebted to “the more sound Scholastics” of an earlier medieval theology. For a similar appraisal, see David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 141–56. 18 I.xii.1 (OS 3.105). 19 I.xiii.29 (OS 3.151): “Molestas et perplexas disputationes […] oblectat speculandi intemperies.” 20 I.xiv.3 (OS 3.156): “Modum tamen quem praescribit pietatis regula, tenere curae erit, ne altuis quarn expedit speculando, lectores a fidei simplicitate abducti vagentur.” 21 Comm. Phil 1:10 (CO 52.12). Cf. Comm. Titus 3:9 (CO 52.434): “Tota enim papistarum theologia nihil est aliud quam quaestionum labyrinthus.” Comm. 1 Tim 5:7 (CO 52.308): “Nihil autem in Dei schola magis discendum quam sanctae et integrae vitae meditatio: denique moralis doctrina argutis speculationibus confertur […].” Also cf. Comm. Col 1:9 (CO 52:81).

38

Part One

When Scholastic theology inquires into God’s essence and engages in speculation, Calvin believes that it must be rejected and replaced by the true knowledge of God that looks to his being-toward-us, to what his works attest that he desires to be on our behalf. There is a third feature of the knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology that is more difficult to define. For Calvin the concept of knowledge denotes more than a merely cognitive or epistemological apprehension. Since the knowledge of God is correlated with the knowledge of ourselves,22 and since this knowledge concerns God’s being-toward-us and our beingbefore-him, it may be described as an “existential” awareness which transforms and affects its subject. The true knowledge of God, Calvin often argues, is self-involving, since it consists in a basic awareness and consciousness of our existence coram Deo. To know God in this sense is inseparably related to a stance of heart-felt trust and reverence toward God. What is God (quid sit Deus)? Men who pose this question are merely toying with idle speculations. It is more important for us to know of what sort he is (qualis sit) and what is consistent with his nature […]. What help is it, in short, to know a God with whom we have nothing to do? Rather, our knowledge should serve first to teach us fear and reverence; secondly, with it as our guide and teacher, we should learn to seek every good from him, and, having received it, to credit it to his account.23

To appreciate the full significance of this third feature of Calvin’s conception of the knowledge of God, we need only note how often Calvin points to its inseparable connection with true “piety” (pietas) and obedience.24 As the following representative statement illustrates, Calvin is fond of describing this knowledge in terms of its immediate relation to the worship and service of God: Now, the knowledge of God, as I understand it, is that by which we not only conceive that there is a God but also grasp what befits us and is proper to his glory, in fine, what is to our advantage to know of him. Indeed, we shall not say that, properly speaking, God is known where there is no religion or piety.25

22 I.i.2 (OS 3.32); II.i.1 (OS 3.228–9); II.i.2 (OS 3.229–30); II.i.3 (OS 3.231). Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 18ff, distinguishes between the “correlative” and the “existential” as two characteristics of the knowledge of God. Here I am simply combining them as a third feature of the knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology. 23 I.ii.2 (OS 3.35). Cf. I.x.2 (OS 3.86–7); III.ii.6 (OS 4.15) Comm. Ezek 1:26 (CO 40.57). 24 For an extended treatment of Calvin’s understanding of Christian piety, see Serene Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995). 25 I.ii.1 (OS 3.34). Cf. I.ii.2 (OS 3.35), where Calvin provides a representative definition of piety: “I call ‘piety’ (pietas) that reverence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces. For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him—they will never yield him willing service.”

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

39

Christian wisdom, or the knowledge of God and ourselves, leads unfailingly to a heart-felt and willing reverence or fear toward God.26 Consequently, Calvin is able to say that “all right knowledge of God is born of obedience,”27 that “the love of God is the beginning of religion,”28 and that “the foundation of true knowledge (vera scientia) is personal knowledge (cognitio) of God, which makes us humble and obedient.”29 Furthermore, it is this feature of the knowledge of God that again surfaces in Calvin’s dispute with some forms of Scholastic theology: The Scripture has good reason to repeat everywhere what we read here about the living knowledge of God. For nothing is commoner in the world than to draw the teaching of God into frigid speculations (frigidas speculationes). This is how theology has been adulterated by the sophists of the Sorbonne, so that from all their knowledge not the slightest spark of godliness shines forth.30

However elusive this third feature of Calvin’s concept of the knowledge of God may be, it is clear that for Calvin this knowledge is inseparably related to piety, to that trust and reverence toward God which is, by contrast to all speculative knowledge about God’s being-in-himself, an efficacious power that transforms and alters the knower.31 Whatever else might be said about Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of God and ourselves, it forms the point of departure for his whole theology, and is the single most important category within which it may be interpreted. For this correlative knowledge of God and ourselves constitutes the basic scopus of his theology or summary of the Christian faith. According to Calvin, this knowledge is born of the Word and revelation of God who, in accommodating himself to our capacity, bears witness, not to his incomprehensible being, but to what he wishes to be in relation to us. Therefore, it is a knowledge which has to do with our standing and existence coram Deo, with our fundamental awareness of who he is and what we are called to be in response to his Word to us. Though this is only an outline of Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of God and ourselves, 26 See, e.g., I.v.9 (OS 3.53); Comm. Ps 40:7 (CO 31.410); Comm. Isa 31:7 (CO 36.538); Comm. Jer 26:3 (CO 38.515); Comm. John 4:23 (CO 47.88). 27 I.vi.2 (OS 3.63): “[…] omnis recta Dei cognitio ab obedientia nascitur.” 28 Comm. Matt 22:37 (CO 45.611): “[…] pietatis initium esse Dei amorem.” Cf. Comm. Jer 10:25 (CO 38.96): “[…] initium pietatis esse in Dei cognitione.” 29 Comm. 1 Cor 8:2 (CO 49.429). 30 Comm. 1 John 2:3 (CO 55.310–1). 31 Cf. Comm. 1 John 4:7 (CO 55.352): “[…] vera Dei cognitio amorem Dei necessario in nobis generat.” Comm. 1 John 2:3 (CO 55.311): “Sumit ergo Iohannes hoc principium, quod Dei cognitio sit efficax […] Dei cognitio, ut eum timeamus et amemus. Neque enim Dominum et patrem, ut se ostendit, possumus agnoscere, quin praebeamus nos illi vicissim morigeros filios, et servos obsequentes.”

40

Part One

clearly this knowledge as the starting point of his theology is what Calvin seeks to articulate in his account of the Christian faith. This means that when Calvin treats the “twofold grace of God,” or the doctrine of justification and sanctification, he must be understood as doing so from within the framework of his understanding of the knowledge of God and ourselves. The theological context for Calvin’s doctrine of justification and sanctification is the knowledge of God and ourselves that is derived from God’s revelation and Word.

3.2 The “Twofold Knowledge of God” (duplex cognitio domini) and the Structure of Calvin’s Theology Though it would seem indisputable that Calvin’s theology aims to summarize the knowledge of God and ourselves, the nature and division of this knowledge are disputed and have led to various appraisals of the structure of Calvin’s theology. In order to answer our question concerning the theological place of the “twofold grace of God” in his theology, some consideration must be given to the manner in which Calvin organizes his treatment of this knowledge of God and ourselves. Doing so will provide a more precise understanding of how the “twofold grace of God” fits within the overall structure of Calvin’s theology. It will be helpful to begin with a summary examination of the positions of Edward A. Dowey, Jr. and T.H.L. Parker on the structure of Calvin’s theology, since both have thoroughly studied Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God and yet have reached apparently incompatible conclusions. On the one hand, Dowey has made a strong case for a twofold division of Calvin’s theology which corresponds to Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold knowledge of God” (duplex cognitio domini).32 Following the lead of J. Köstlin,33 Dowey proposes the following: From the point of view of the knowledge of God, which is the foundation of Calvin’s theological writing, Calvin’s Institutes of 1559 contains two, not four divisions. Further, the first and much the smaller of the two is the more general and inclusive, setting the context and proposing the categories within which the latter is to be grasped. This division corresponds to what Calvin conceived of as two kinds of revelation: the revelation of God as Creator, and as Redeemer. The short Book I of

32 See Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 41–9 for a summary of his argument. For a restatement of his view, with slight modifications, see Dowey, “The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought as Influenced by the Two-fold Knowledge of God,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, ed. W.H. Neuser (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984), 135–48. 33 “Calvins Institutio nach Form und Inhalt.”

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

41

the 1559 edition represents the former, and the whole remainder of the work represents the latter.34

On this interpretation, the arrangement of the Institutes, while ostensibly following the four parts of the Apostle’s Creed (God the Creator, God the Redeemer, God the Holy Spirit, and the church and sacraments), is fundamentally determined by this “twofold knowledge of God,” the knowledge of God as Creator and the knowledge of God as Redeemer.35 What we discover in Calvin’s theology is a twofold treatment of the knowledge of God and ourselves:36 Book I consists of a treatment of the Triune God as the Creator and providential Governor of the world, and of ourselves as his creatures; and Books II-IV consist of a treatment of the knowledge of God the Redeemer through the incarnate Son (Book II) and through the Holy Spirit (Books III & IV).37 On the other hand, T.H.L. Parker has emphatically rejected this account of Calvin’s ordering of the knowledge of God.38 According to Parker, the analysis of Köstlin and Dowey threatens the unity of Calvin’s theology: “To impose upon it the duplex cognitio Dei is to destroy that unity and to make it such a badly arranged book that we should be very surprised that a theologian of Calvin’s taste should have professed himself satisfied with 34 The Knowledge of God, 41. According to Dowey the locus classicus for this twofold knowledge of God is Institutes I.ii.1 (OS 3.34): “Quia ergo Dominus primum simpliciter creator tam in mundi opificio, quam in generali Scripturae doctrina, deinde in Christi facie redemptor apparet: hinc duplex emergit eius cognitio: quarum nunc prior tractanda est, altera deinde suo ordine sequetur.” 35 In his argument for this arrangement Dowey refers to the following passages: I.vi.1 (OS 3.61); I.vi.2 (OS 3.62); I.x.1 (OS 3.85); I. xiii.9 (OS 3.119); I.xiii.11 (OS 3.123); II.vi.1 (OS 3.320). In evaluating the significance of these passages, it should be noted that they all were added in the final Latin edition of the Institutes; they represent Calvin’s mature reflection upon the nature and division of the knowledge of God. 36 It should be noted that this twofold knowledge of God is not exactly congruent with the traditional distinction between “general” and “special” revelation. Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 43: “It is not identical with the distinction between general and special revelation; that is, with the revelation in creation and in Scripture. Rather, the first element crosses the border of the special revelation. The knowledge of the Creator has two sources: creation and the ‘general’ doctrine of Scripture; and the knowledge of the Redeemer has one source, Christ.” 37 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 42, provides the following summary of his and Köstlin’s analysis of the structure of the Institutes: “1. The doctrines of God the Father, Son, and Spirit, and his creation and world government in general, apart from sin and the redemptive activity that sin makes necessary—and similarly of mankind, apart from sin and the necessity for salvation. (Book I). 2. The historical revelation and activity of God for the salvation of the sinner, as follows: a. The establishing of salvation through the Incarnate Son, for which preparation had already been made under the Old Covenant. (Book II). b. The application through the Holy Spirit of the salvation given in Christ, as follows: (1) The process of salvation which is realized inwardly by the Spirit in individuals, extending until the perfection of these persons in the resurrection. (Book III). (2) The outer means which God uses in this activity of the Spirit. (Book IV).” 38 Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, “Appendix,” 117–125.

42

Part One

it.”39 Parker argues that Calvin’s explicit ordering of the material in terms of the Apostle’s Creed must be retained and that his arrangement is Trinitarian.40 The order of his theology is simply the successive treatment of the knowledge of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Furthermore, according to Parker, Dowey incorrectly identifies the duplex cognitio: “We may say, however, that the Institutio does in fact reflect a duplex cognitio; but the cognitio is the knowledge of God and ourselves, a concept that opens every edition […].”41 It is this twofold knowledge which is foundational for Calvin’s theology, not the twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. If it were the latter, as Dowey alleges, then we would have to conclude that Calvin has a natural theology and “apologetic” program, since the knowledge of God the Creator is said to “set the context and propose the categories” within which the knowledge of God as Redeemer is to be grasped.42 These two accounts of the structure of Calvin’s theology represent important alternatives which have emerged in previous studies of Calvin’s theology.43 It remains to be seen which is correct and how this might affect our judgment as to the theological setting for Calvin’s doctrine of the the “twofold grace of God.” It should be noted here, however, that Parker’s objection to Dowey’s analysis rests largely upon this latter concern. Parker’s concern certainly relates to the controversy between Karl Barth and Emil Brunner over the existence of such a natural theology and apologetic program in Calvin’s thought.44 Parker is convinced that Dowey’s 39 Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 119. 40 Cf. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 103, fn. 4: “Parker attends more closely to the Trinitarian implications of Calvin’s thought than Dowey does, but he still does not see how thoroughly it informs Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God. He correctly demures from Dowey’s view of the structure of the Institutes […].” 41 Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 119. 42 Thus Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 41. Parker’s strongly-worded criticism of Dowey’s position is based, as we shall see, upon his assumption that it allows for a “Brunnerian” interpretation of Calvin’s theology. Suffice it to say that the interpretation of Calvin’s thought at this point as well as others has been deeply influenced by the debate between Barth and Brunner over the question of natural theology. Cf. K. Barth and E. Brunner, Natural Theology. 43 Cf., however, Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, 193, where he argues against Dowey’s position and suggests his own: “I would like to suggest that it is not the duplex cognitio domini which underlies the final organization of the Institutes, but Calvin’s conception of order as that is structured in the correlation of the Spirit and the Word. Thus, Book I describes the original order of creation, i.e., the doctrines of God and man apart from sin; Book II.iv the disruption of that order in the fall; and Books II.vi–IV the restoration of order, i.e., the Word (Book II) brought to us by the Spirit (Book III) through the external means (Book IV).” I fail to see how this suggestion improves upon Dowey’s analysis. In the first place, it is not incompatible with Dowey’s position. But more importantly, it utilizes an important motif in Calvin’s thought—the conception of order both in creation and redemption—to account for the arrangement of the Institutes, though this motif plays nowhere near as prominent a role as Milner assigns to it. 44 For a clarification of some of the complex issues in this controversy and in more recent Calvin studies, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, Appendix III, “The Barth-Brunner Contro-

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

43

analysis places him squarely on the side of Brunner in this controversy. Since he concurs with Barth’s judgment as to the deleterious consequences of a natural theology, Parker strenuously repudiates Dowey’s position as incompatible with the one he espouses. A resolution of this dispute requires, therefore, an examination as to whether Parker’s conviction can be substantiated. Since I believe these positions of Dowey and Parker represent two important options on the structure of Calvin’s theology, I am assuming that one or the other, or some combination of the two, must be considered a legitimate account of this structure.45 Though upon a superficial reading the respective positions of Dowey and Parker seem incompatible, on closer investigation this appears to be more a matter of perception than of reality. Parker, for example, seriously misconstrues the implications of Dowey’s analysis of the structure of Calvin’s theology in terms of the twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. He specifically ignores Dowey’s careful distinction between the “historical” or “logical order” and the ordo cognoscendi in his analysis of the Institutes, and his designation of the relation between the knowledge of God as Creator and as Redeemer as a “double presupposition.” On the first point, Dowey states: The final arrangement of the Institutes proceeds in a more or less historical and logical order from God, to creation, to the Fall of man and the need for Christ, to Christ himself, and to the appropriation of Christ. But we are following the ordo cognoscendi, and from this point of view the center of and introduction to the Institutes is the doctrine of faith, because the believer actually in his own experience progresses from his own present knowledge and experience of Christ to see with new eyes his needy condition as well as to recognize God’s work in creation which had formerly been mostly hidden from him in its religious significance, although continuing to exist.46 versy on Calvin,” 247–9; Arthur C. Cochrane, “A Preliminary Aspect of Calvin’s Epistemology,” UTQ 13 (1944): 382–93; John Newton Thomas, “The Place of Natural Theology in the Thought of John Calvin,” Journal of Religious Thought 15 (1958): 107–36; Pierre Maury, “La Théologie naturelle chez Calvin,” Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 84 (1935): 267–79; and Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, 23–39. Maury expresses the consensus of these writers that Calvin does not accept a “natural theology” in the ordinary sense, that is, a natural knowledge of God which may be appropriated without the mediation of Christ, though he admits a revelation of God in creation. For a defense of the thesis that Calvin allows for a limited natural theology, see Gerald J. Postema, “Calvin’s Alleged Rejection of Natural Theology,” SJT 24/4 (1971): 423–34; and Helm, “Natural Theology and the Sensus Divinitatis,” in John Calvin’s Ideas, 209–45. 45 See Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 118–39, for a detailed treatment of Calvin’s organization of the Institutes in the context of sixteenth-century theology. While Muller acknowledges the importance of Calvin’s distinction between the knowledge of God as Creator and as Redeemer, as well as the obvious credal and Trinitarian order of the Institutes, he argues that the “order” or “structure” of the Institutes is influenced by a number of factors, particularly Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, which follows the outline of Paul’s letter to the Romans, and Calvin’s exegetical commentaries in relation to sixteenth-century controversies. 46 The Knowledge of God, 152.

44

Part One

If the full significance of this statement is grasped, then there is no basis for Parker’s contention that Dowey admits a natural theology or apologetic program in Calvin’s thought, despite his claim that we must distinguish, following Calvin, between the revelation of God as Creator and the revelation of God as Redeemer.47 Dowey’s use of the terminology “double presupposition” yields a similar conclusion: while he speaks of the knowledge of God as Creator as a “logical or conceptual presupposition” of the knowledge of God as Redeemer—saying no more nor less than that the Redeemer is also the Triune Creator—this knowledge of God the Redeemer is an “epistemological presupposition” of the knowledge of God the Creator— saying no more nor less than that we only genuinely know God the Creator through faith in Christ.48 Parker simply fails to appreciate the importance of these points in his criticism of Dowey’s position and, consequently, incorrectly adjudges his and Dowey’s analyses to be fundamentally at odds. Furthermore, Parker does not adequately account for the important references to the twofold knowledge of God which Dowey cites in support of his view, when he suggests that these merely reflect “one methodological distinction” among many.49 For his part, Dowey provides an occasion for Parker’s suspicion concerning the consequences of his view when he refers to the arrangement of the Institutes along the lines of the Apostle’s Creed as an “ostensible” and “misleading” clue to the structure of Calvin’s theology.50 By stating further that the knowledge of God the Creator “sets the context and proposes the categories within which the knowledge of God as Redeemer is to be grasped,” he only exacerbates misinterpretation by creating an impression which he himself disowns, namely, that the former is a kind of “propadeutic or first lesson in redemption.”51 It may also be possible to argue that, by emphasizing the distinction between the knowledge of God as Creator and as Redeemer, Dowey suggests a sharper separation between them than 47 Parker’s conclusion on natural theology, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 26– 7, differs little from that of Dowey: “Is God then known by means of a consideration of the universe and history? Ideally—or rather, originally, yes. In fact, no. For between the original and the actual stands the Fall, which alters the whole problem of knowledge and revelation.” Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 146: “[…] because of the willful ignorance of sin all this revelation [of God as Creator, both in the world and Scripture] issues only in a mass of both crude and refined idolatries, in which men alternatively cower in fright or rise in self-justified revolt against the true God.” 48 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 238–9. 49 Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 121. The titles which Calvin gives to Books I and II also present a prima facie case against this attempt to minimize the importance of the twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer for determining the structure of Calvin’s theology. 50 The Knowledge of God, 41. 51 The Knowledge of God, 239.

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

45

Calvin himself would permit.52 Though Dowey does argue that Calvin’s understanding of the law provides a fruitful way of uniting his doctrines of creation and redemption, it is possible to argue that he does not pursue the unity between these two doctrines far enough in his interpretation of Calvin’s theology, something which E. David Willis has suggested in his study of the so-called “extra-calvinisticum.”53 Though this dispute between Dowey and Parker could be pursued further, enough has been said to allow some initial conclusions on the structure of Calvin’s theology and his treatment of the knowledge of God and ourselves. It should be apparent that there is no insuperable difference between the positions of Dowey and Parker, and that both can muster compelling evidence for their respective claims about the structure of Calvin’s theology. It was noted that Parker objects to Dowey’s position on the basis of an incorrect judgment as to its consequences, and that Dowey may have overstated his case in such a way as to create the impression that the Trinitarian arrangement of Calvin’s theology is a relatively unimportant clue to its structure. If this is true, there seems to be no reason why one should have to choose between their respective positions or consider them to be incompatible. In my view no such choice needs to be made and there is nothing to prevent our appropriating the insights of both. Assuming the compatibility of these two positions, the following account of the structure of Calvin’s theology emerges: Calvin organizes his treatment of the knowledge of God and ourselves in terms of the knowledge of God the Triune Creator (Book I) and the knowledge of God the Triune Redeemer (Books II-IV). There are two considerations at work in his exposition of the Christian faith, one being the duplex cognitio domini, and the other being the explicitly Trinitarian understanding and treatment of this twofold knowledge. A full account of the structure of Calvin’s theology requires an acknowledgment of both considerations. Moreover, if one distinguishes between the ordo docendi and the ordo cognoscendi, it is appar52 As was evident from an earlier passage cited, this is an important aspect of Parker’s criticism, since he interprets Dowey’s position as threatening the unity and coherence of Calvin’s theology. See Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 119ff. 53 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology. As noted earlier, Willis sides with Parker in stressing the Trinitarian ordering of Calvin’s theology. This does not mean, however, that he rejects Dowey’s approach outright, as does Parker. According to Willis, Dowey’s analysis of the unity between the knowledge of God as Creator and as Redeemer needs to be strengthened and the distinction drawn less sharply. His own thesis, in relation to that of Dowey, is (125, fn 4): “He [i.e. Dowey] recognizes that the cognitio creatoris presupposes the cognitio redemptoris and vice versa; he does not, however, call attention to the extent to which this is integral to Calvin’s thought and how it is made operative partly by the ‘extra calvinisticum.’” The study of W. Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin, also confirms the fully Trinitarian character of Calvin’s thought and indicates the unity and coherence between the Spirit’s work in creation and in redemption.

46

Part One

ent that in the former Calvin follows a more or less historical arrangement, as Dowey suggests. In terms of the ordo docendi, the Institutes treat the opera ad extra (here understood in the most comprehensive sense) of the Triune God who creates, redeems, and sanctifies within the movement of Creation, Fall, and redemption. In terms of the latter, the ordo cognoscendi, it is apparent that Calvin does not fully take up the question of how we know this Triune God as Creator and Redeemer until Book III, when he treats the issue of faith and its “object” (obiectum) or “scopus” (scopum).54 His treatment of this issue (itself Trinitarian in nature), while deferred to this point, is presupposed throughout the whole of his theological writing.55 It is especially the failure to bear this last distinction in mind that has misled some interpreters in their criticism of Calvin’s arrangement of the material, particularly his decision to open with an exposition of the knowledge of God as Creator,56 a criticism represented by the appraisal of the Lutheran Wernle that this exposition constitutes a “complete abstraction.”57 What this criticism often ignores, furthermore, is the function this structuring of the material plays in Calvin’s exposition of the knowledge of God 54 It is essential to an interpretation of Calvin’s epistemology that one recognize how he defers his treatment of our actual knowledge of God, given the corrupting influence of sin upon our reception of the revelation of God as Creator, until he takes up the subject of faith in Book III. Calvin’s own awareness that actual knowledge of God presupposes faith in Christ is indicated in the following passages: I.vii.1 (OS 3.65–6) and II.vi.1 (OS 3.320). Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 87, 157–64, 174; Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 25ff, 66ff; and Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Theology, 105ff. 55 Since I am not directly interested in the question of Calvin’s epistemology, no adequate account of it will be presented here. By its “Trinitarian nature,” I mean to refer to the fact that, for Calvin, God the Father manifests himself through the Son (his Word or sermo), and this manifestation is appropriated by faith through the inward testimony of the Spirit. In this connection, a disputed interpretive issue is that of the authority and function of Scripture in relation to Calvin’s doctrine of faith, revelation, and the “object” of faith. Though it is not always evident, Calvin overcomes a merely “formal” view of Scriptural authority when he treats it as the unique medium which bears witness to the revelation of God in Christ. Scripture mediates the knowledge of God insofar as it witnesses to and interprets the revelation of God in Christ, its scopus. Cf., e.g., IV.viii.5 (OS 5.137); Comm. Col 2:3 (CO 52.100); Comm. John 2:17 (CO 47.45); Comm. John 5:39 (CO 47.125); Comm. Luke 24:46 (CO 45.817); Comm. Eph 2:20 (CO 51.175); Comm. Heb 13:9 (CO 55.190); Comm. 2 Peter 1:19 (CO 55.457). On this issue, especially that of Scripture’s authority and function, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 157ff; Dee, Het Geloofsbegrip Van Calvijn, 137ff; Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes, 173ff; Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, 227–33; Paul Lehmann, “The Reformer’s Use of the Bible,” TT 3 (1946): 328–44; and John T. McNeill, “The Significance of the Word of God for Calvin,” CH 28 (1959): 131–46. 56 Though this criticism is usually associated with the name of Karl Barth, others have similarly criticized this arrangement. For example, Ebeling, in his “Cognitio Dei et hominis,” 304ff, argues that it reflects an irresolvable tension between Calvin’s doctrine of creation and redemption. More seriously, he argues that it leads Calvin to speak “abstractly” about the knowledge of God and ourselves, since this knowledge is not wholly controlled by the knowledge of God in Christ. 57 Der Evangelische Glaube, 3:394: “[…] gewaltsame Abstraktion.”

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

47

and ourselves, as well as Calvin’s own methodological self-consciousness about the epistemological presupposition for all such knowledge, whether of God as Creator or as Redeemer.58 In order to interpret properly this arrangement of the material, it is critically important that this function be understood and acknowledged, for Calvin is certainly aware that his opening section on the knowledge of God the Creator cannot stand alone, but relates directly to what will follow. This awareness means that, though Calvin believes there are legitimate reasons for proceeding in this fashion, he does not believe it possible to follow his exposition when this relation is overlooked.59 Before we summarize the significance of this account of the structure of Calvin’s theology for establishing the theological context and place of his treatment of the “twofold grace of God,” then, we must articulate the function that this ordering of the material plays. This function is twofold. First, this arrangement underscores Calvin’s conviction that the Triune God who redeems is also the one who creates. While Dowey may state it too strongly when he says this opening section on the knowledge of God the Creator “sets the context and proposes the categories” for the knowledge of God the Redeemer, he correctly argues that the role of this section is to provide a “logical or conceptual presupposition” for what follows. Though this might seem to be a rather obvious point, it is of basic theological importance for Calvin that we understand the identity of the Triune Redeemer as one who does not forsake his creation, but who remains faithful and who shows himself merciful in spite of human sin and disobedience.60 Second, Calvin begins where he does, not to provide an abstract discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator, as is often supposed, or one which bears little relation to the knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, but precisely in order to lead his readers to Christ. This he attempts to do by indicating how inexcusable our willful infidelity is, and how helpless is our condition without the initiative of God in redemp58 Again, cf. Calvin’s comment in II.vi.1 (OS 3.320): “Ergo postquam excidimus a vita in mortem, inutilis esset tota illa Dei creatoris, de qua disseruimus, cognitio nisi succederet etiam fides, Deum in Christo Patrem nobis proponens.” 59 While I am using the terminology of “structure” and “order,” Calvin’s arrangement is not one which he claims to be necessary or absolute. It is possible to read his Institutes from back to front, since Calvin repeatedly reminds his readers of the relation between his immediate topic and matters discussed elsewhere. Conversely, it is impossible to interpret adequately its particular topics without some awareness of the whole. 60 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 99–100, nicely states this point in connection with his discussion of the so-called extra-calvinisticum: “[Calvin] keeps in the foreground the assertion that the Incarnation was not the Eternal Son’s abdication of his universal empire but the reassertion of that empire over rebellious creation. This continuity of gracious order over creaturely attempts at disunity depends on the identity of the Redeeming Mediator in the flesh with the Mediator who is the Eternal Son of God by whom, and with whose Spirit, all things were created according to the Father’s will” (emphasis mine).

48

Part One

tion.61 Apart from redemption in Christ, Calvin wants to argue, we stand condemned for our ingratitude and refusal to live in fellowship with our Creator, particularly in view of his “objective” and revealing presence in creation. This second function is especially significant and has not received its due in previous analyses of the structure of Calvin’s theology. For it indicates that Calvin’s decision to order his material as he does is based in part, not so much upon any absolute conviction that this is the only legitimate way of proceeding, but upon his conviction that this constitutes an ordo docendi which serves a persuasive function consistent with his theological perspective.62 Rather than beginning with an exposition of the knowledge of God the Redeemer (a likely starting point in view of Calvin’s claim that God’s Son manifest in the flesh is “the chief of the principles of all revealed doctrine and as it were their hinge”63), he consciously follows the example of the apostle Paul in his teaching and allows rhetorical considerations to play a role in his decision as to how to arrange the material. The following appraisals by Calvin of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel support this interpretation of the function of this arrangement and the rhetorical considerations which underlie it. In his commentary on Romans 1:17ff, Calvin writes: 61 Cf., e.g., I.vi.1 (OS 3.60); I.v.12 (OS 3.57–8); Comm. Acts 14:15 (CO 48.325–6); Comm. Acts 17:24 (CO 48.41). Parker underscores this function; Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 121–5. Unfortunately, he also engages Dowey polemically by arguing that he follows Brunner here in attributing a positive apologetic function to the revelation of God in creation. Dowey, however, nowhere denies Parker’s contention that the revelation of God as Creator alone plays no role in achieving a true and actual knowledge of God. Like Parker, he notes that this revelation alone provides no “foundation for faith” and has “an exclusively negative function.” Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 85. 62 Calvin’s adoption of this persuasive ordo docendi indicates the extent to which he is indebted to a certain understanding of rhetoric in the classical and Renaissance humanist traditions. For a more extensive discussion of this issue, see Quirinus Breen, “John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition,” in Christianity and Humanism, 107–29; E. David Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility,” 43–63; William J. Bouwsma, “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” CTJ 17 (1982): 190–211; Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy, 6–8; Francois Wendel, Calvin, 31–7; Olivier Millet, Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole (Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, 1992); idem, “Docere/Movere: Les catégories rhétoriques et leurs sources humanistes dans la doctrine calvinienne de la foi,” in Calvinius Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, ed. Neuser and Armstrong (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997), 35–51; and Brian G. Armstrong, “Duplex cognitio Dei, Or?: The Problem and Relation of Structure, Form, and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition, ed. E. McKee and B. Armstrong, 137–42. For a discussion of the classical tradition and the place of rhetoric generally in the middle ages, see Jerrold E. Seigel, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1968), 3–30; and Richard McKeon, “Rhetoric in the Middle Ages,” Spec 17 (January, 1942): 1–32. 63 Comm. 1 Tim, Argumentum (CO 52.246): “Tandem totius coelestis doctrinae praecipuum caput et quasi cardinem de filio Dei in carne manifestato commemorat.”

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

49

I feel that it is here that Paul begins his controversial matter, and that the main theme [the “righteousness of God”] has been stated in the preceding sentence. His object is to instruct us where salvation is to be sought. He has stated that we can obtain it only by the gospel, but because the flesh will not willingly humble itself to the point of ascribing the praise of salvation to the grace of God alone, Paul shows that the whole world is guilty of death. It follows from this that we must recover life by some other means, since in ourselves we are all lost.64

For Calvin, Paul begins with a demonstration of our need for salvation solely in order to preserve for God’s grace in Christ the whole praise in salvation. Further, in connection with a reference in Acts to Paul’s “persuasive” teaching of Jews and Gentiles, Calvin indicates how he construes Paul’s regulation of his teaching in pursuing this objective. I take peithein, that is, to persuade, in the sense of “to introduce little by little.” For in my opinion Luke means that since the Jews discussed the Law coldly and halfheartedly, Paul spoke about the corrupt and ruined nature of man, about the necessity of grace, about the promised Redeemer, about the method of obtaining salvation, in order to waken them up; for that is an apt and suitable preparation for Christ (haec enim apta est et concinna ad Christum praeparatio). Secondly, when he adds that he was ‘constrained in the spirit’ to teach that Jesus is the Christ, the meaning is that he was driven with greater vehemence to speak freely and openly of Christ. So we see that Paul did not bring everything forward at one and the same time; but that he regulated his teaching as the occasion demanded. And since that moderation is also beneficial today it is proper for faithful teachers to consider wisely where to make a start so that an inopportune and confused argument (praepostera confusaque ratio) might not impede the progress of the teaching itself.65

Both of these comments are significant, since they reflect Calvin’s judgment that the ordo docendi of Christian theology must serve a single objective, namely, “to prepare for Christ’ (ad Christum praeparatio). The second comment is especially illuminating as Calvin attributes to Paul’s “persuasive” teaching an order which exactly duplicates his own in the Institutes, and attests his own conviction concerning where one ought to begin in order to achieve this objective. Taken together they support the claim that Calvin’s arrangement of the material in his Institutes is partially dependent upon rhetorical considerations, and serves a persuasive function consistent with his theological orientation, namely, to bear witness to the grace of God in Christ. They also argue against any interpretation which would sever the integral relation between Calvin’s opening treatment of the knowledge of God the Creator and his subsequent treatment of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, since it is with the latter in full view that the former is treated. 64 65

Comm. Rom 1:18 (CO 49.22). Comm. Acts 18:4, 5 (CO 48.425).

50

Part One

If this interpretation of the function of Calvin’s arrangement of the material is correct, then the following more complete summary of the structure of his theology seems required. Calvin orders his exposition of the knowledge of God and ourselves both in terms of the twofold knowledge of God and in terms of the three Articles of the Creed. Neither of these is inimical to or exclusive of the other, since the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer is the knowledge of one and the self-same Triune God who creates, redeems, and sanctifies. The Trinitarian ordering of the material complements the ordering in terms of the twofold knowledge of God by identifying the Triune Redeemer with the Triune Creator, without implying an absolute congruence between the revelation and knowledge appropriate to each. Furthermore, the preceding account of the function of this arrangement indicates what has not been sufficiently acknowledged in previous Calvin studies, namely, the extent to which Calvin may consciously be following the example of the apostle Paul in structuring a persuasive witness to the grace of God in Christ.66 While there is no absolute claim made for following this arrangement, Calvin begins with the knowledge of the Triune Creator, not only to establish the identity between Creator and Redeemer, but also more importantly to lead his readers, step by step, to his basic claim concerning the reality of and our need for the redemptive work of God in Christ through the Spirit. On this analysis, rather than constituting an “abstract” and dubious beginning, his initial treatment of the knowledge of God the Creator is determined by his desire to provide an “apt and suitable preparation for Christ” or the knowledge of God the Redeemer. The ordering of the material in respect to the twofold knowledge of God must be granted its own integrity and purpose, which cannot be adequately accounted for when one admits only a Trinitarian ordering of the material along the lines of the Creed.

3.3 Summary While this has been a rather extended exposition on the structure of Calvin’s theology and treatment of the knowledge of God, it brings us to a point where some initial conclusions may be drawn on the context of his treatment of the “twofold grace of God.” As was noted at the outset of this chapter, this treatment finds its immediate location in Book III of the Institutes, under the general heading: “The way in which we receive the grace of 66 This conclusion is consistent with Muller’s argument that the structure of Calvin’s Institutes was influenced by Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, which was clearly structured along the lines of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. See Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 137.

The Structure of Calvin’s Theology

51

Christ: What benefits come to us from it, and what effects follow.” If now the question is pressed—what does this treatment presuppose?—the following provisional answer suggests itself. Before taking up his discussion of the “twofold grace of God,” Calvin begins with the foundational claim that the subject matter of Christian theology is the knowledge of God and ourselves, and that this knowledge derives from God’s revelation or Word insofar as he accommodates himself to us. In his exposition of this knowledge of God and ourselves, Calvin chooses to distinguish between the knowledge of God the Triune Creator and of ourselves as created by him, and the knowledge of God the Triune Redeemer and of ourselves as redeemed by him. By adopting this distinction and arrangement, Calvin attempts to fulfill two objectives, both of which witness persuasively to the grace of God the Redeemer in Christ: first, to establish the identity, albeit not absolute congruity, between the knowledge of the Triune Redeemer and Creator, and thereby suggest that redemption involves God’s free decision to remain faithful to his creative purpose, despite the sinful creature’s unfaithfulness and willful disobedience; and second, to establish the inexcusability of this unfaithfulness in contrast with the gratuitous mercy exhibited in God’s redemption in Christ. Furthermore, within the framework of this basic organizing distinction, Calvin’s treatment of the “twofold grace of God” also presupposes a fully Trinitarian understanding of redemption. This understanding is explicitly indicated by Calvin’s decision to follow the four Articles of the Creed: God the Father, the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, is the author of redemption (Book I); God the Son is sent by the Father and accomplishes that redemption which was anticipated under the Old Covenant (Book II); and God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, makes us partakers of redemption in Christ through the gift of faith (Book III), and through the external means of church and sacraments (Book IV). What this analysis indicates, then, is that the “twofold grace of God,” though treated by Calvin primarily in Book III as the twofold benefit of our reception of the grace of God in Christ through faith, bears a clear relation to the material preceding it and subsequent to it. Unless this relation is borne in mind, the full meaning and significance of Calvin’s exposition of this twofold grace will be lost and his position distorted. For within its more comprehensive framework, the “twofold grace of God” does not represent simply one discrete theme among many. Rather, it represents a particular perspective upon something more pervasive and fundamental: the being and action of the Triune Creator and Redeemer toward us as his redeemed creatures. As an exposition of the twofold benefit of God’s grace in Christ, it presupposes the Triune Creator’s free decision to remain faithful in spite of the creature’s infidelity; it presupposes the exhibition of that faithfulness in

52

Part One

the person and work of the Mediator, Christ; it presupposes our union with Christ through the work of the Spirit and the gift of faith; and it anticipates the treatment of church and sacraments as the external means within which this twofold benefit is communicated. In the form of a general outline, this constitutes the larger theological context for the the “twofold grace of God” in Calvin’s theology. To complete our account of the theological location of the “twofold grace of God” in Calvin’s theology, we must now turn to Calvin’s treatment of the knowledge of God the Creator, and the knowledge of God the Redeemer through Christ’s person and work as Mediator. For it is within the setting of his discussion of these subjects that the “twofold grace of God” finds its particular place within Calvin’s theology.

4. The Knowledge of God as Creator1

Since the function of Calvin’s opening treatment of the knowledge of God the Creator has already been discussed, the account of its content in this chapter will be brief. The gist of Calvin’s discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator is that God continues to reveal himself to all people, and yet, owing to the corrosive and corrupting influence of sin, this revelation in creation, rather than serving its intended function of bringing us happiness in glorifying God, now serves an “accidental” function in rendering us inexcusable.2 Whatever Calvin says about the knowledge of God the Creator, then, falls under the proviso that, apart from faith in Christ, it is useless in achieving its original purpose. Therefore, since we have fallen from life unto death, the whole knowledge of God the Creator […] would be useless (inutilis) unless faith also followed, setting forth for us God our Father in Christ. The natural order should be the school (schola) in which we were to learn piety, and from it pass over to eternal life and perfect felicity. But after man’s rebellion, our eyes—wherever they turn—encounter God’s curse […]. For even if God wills to manifest his fatherly favor to us in many ways, yet we cannot by contemplating the universe infer that he is Father.3

In his actual exposition of the knowledge of God the Creator, Calvin divides the material into two parts, the first treating the knowledge derived from creation itself, and the second treating the knowledge derived from special revelation or Scripture.4 Within the first part, he discusses the 1 For comprehensive discussions of Calvin’s doctrine of the knowledge of God as Creator, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 50–147; Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 7–56; Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 39–86; Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik, 182–97; and Richard Stauffer, Dieu, la création, et la Providence. 2 Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 81–6; and Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 25–40. 3 II.vi.1 (OS 3.320). Cf. Comm. Rom 1:20 (CO 49.24): “Hinc facile constat, quantum ex hac demonstratione homines consequantur: nempe ut nullam possint affere defensionem in iudicum Dei quin iure sint damnabiles. Sit ergo haec distinctio: demonstrationem Dei, qua gloriam suam in creaturis perspicuam facit, esse, quantum ad lucem suam, satis evidentem: quantum ad nostram caecitatem, non adeo sufficere.” Congregation sur la divinité de Jesus Christ (CO 47.481): “[…] il nous faut noter que les hommes ont assez de clarte de la cognoissance de Dieu pour estre convaincus et rendus inexcusables devant Dieu.” Also cf. Serm. Job 32:1–3 (CO 35.4–6); I.v.11 (OS 3.55–6); I.v.12–14 (OS 3.56–9). 4 Cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 86: “Parallel to the knowledge of God the Creator learned from creation (Institutes I.ii-v), Calvin sets forth the knowledge of God the Creator learned

54

Part One

knowledge of God the Creator that is present in the creation both microcosmically and macrocosmically.5 And within the second part, he discusses the knowledge of God the Creator that is available in a special manner through Scripture. According to Calvin, this Scriptural source for the knowledge of God the Creator clarifies the first where it has been obscured through willful ignorance, and complements it by referring to aspects of this knowledge not otherwise available.

4.1 The Knowledge of God the Creator Apart from Scripture In his discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator apart from Scripture, Calvin claims that God is universally present to all people in one of two ways which, for the purpose of this summary, may be termed a “microcosmic” and a “macrocosmic” presence. God reveals himself as Creator through the microcosm of the human self and through the macrocosm of the world. For Calvin, one aspect of God’s microcosmic presence is the sensus divinitatis, or inexpungable awareness of God’s divinity that is common to all people. As he puts it, [t]here is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of the divine majesty.6

Since this sensus divinitatis or, as Calvin sometimes terms it, semen religionis,7 is universally present in the human mind, Calvin maintains that religion is not an arbitrary convention or adventitious phenomenon,8 and, from special revelation (I.vi-ix), then, he compares the two (I.x.1–2) and finds that God has been perfectly consistent in revealing himself identically in both places. In the remainder of Book I he then goes on to elaborate what Scripture teaches of the Creator over and above what can be learned (at least under the conditions of sin) from creation itself. The latter section includes the Biblical doctrines of the Trinity, Creation, and Providence.” 5 Sometimes alternative terms are used to describe these two forms of the knowledge of God in creation, such as “subjective” and “objective,” “internal” and “external,” or “psychological” and “creational.” Though none of these terms is fully adequate, it is particularly misleading to use the term “subjective” for the knowledge of God the Creator given through the structure of the self. It is misleading because both forms of revelation, whether through the self or through the created world, are “objective” and universally available to their intended recipients. 6 I.iii.1 (OS 3.37): “Quendam inesse humanae menti, et quidem naturali instinctu, divinitatis sensum, extra controversiam ponimus: siquidem, nequis ad ignorantiae praetextum confugeret, quandam sui numinis intelligentiam universis Deus ipse indidit […].” Cf. Comm. Hab 1:16 (CO 43.515): “[…] sensu pietatis.” 7 E.g., I.iv.1 (OS 3.40): “Sicut autem omnibus inditum esse divinitus religionis semen experientia testator […].” 8 I.iii.2 (OS 3.38–9).

The Knowledge of God as Creator

55

conversely, that actual godlessness is impossible.9 However much it may be distorted, this awareness of God’s majesty insinuates itself into every manner in which religion is practiced. There is for Calvin, in addition to this general awareness of God’s divinity, another aspect to this microcosmic revelation of God the Creator: human conscience (conscientia).10 As with the sensus divinitatis, by the conscience Calvin refers to a universal awareness; yet this awareness differs from that having to do with God’s majesty, since it specifically refers to an inescapable awareness of God’s orderly will. For Calvin, the conscience refers to our created capacity to determine what is in accord with God’s will or “natural law.”11 Though Calvin’s complete understanding of the nature and function of conscience is complex and lies outside the scope of this summary, together with the sensus divinitatis it comprises Calvin’s complete account of the way in which God the Creator universally manifests himself through the microcosm of the human self. As far as the macrocosmic presence of God the Creator is concerned, it likewise consists of at least two aspects; the first being the whole creation itself as God’s “workmanship,”12 and the second being God’s regulation of 9 Cf. I.iii.3 (OS 3.40), where Calvin argues that, if people do not pursue the goal of knowing God, they “degenerate from the law of their creation (a creationis suae lege degenerare).” 10 See, e.g., Comm. John 1:5 (CO 47.6): “Duae sunt praecipuae luminis partes, quod adhuc in corrupta natura residet. Nam omnibus ingenitum est alioquod religionis semen: deinde insculptum est eorum conscientiis boni et mali discrimen. Sed qui tandem inde fructus emergunt, nisi quod religio in mille superstitionum portenta degenerat, conscientia autem iudicium omne pervertit, ut vitium cum virtute confundat? In summa, nunquam naturalis ratio homines ad Christum diriget.” So close are these two aspects of our awareness of God, Calvin can on occasion assimilate the significance of one to the other. Cf. e.g., Serm. Job 32:1–3 (CO 35.5): “[…] car cela es demeuré engravé en la conscience, que le monde ne s’estoit point formé de soi, qu’il y avoit quelque maiesté celeste à laquelle il se faut assuiettir.” 11 E.g., IV.x. 3 (OS 5. 166); Comm. Rom 2:15 (CO 49.38); Serm. Job 9:1–6 (CO 33.413); Serm. Job 16:1–9 (CO 34.8); Serm. Job 33:14–17 (CO 35.74). For a more comprehensive treatment of Calvin’s understanding of conscience, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 56–72; and Randall C. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, 91–158. Though conscience is, for Calvin, a cognitive category and not equivalent to the law, it is an awareness of what the (natural) law requires. For general treatments of Calvin’s understanding of natural law, see J. Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht (Feudigen in Westfalen: Buchdruckerei G.m.b.H., 1934); Arthur C. Cochrane, “Natural Law in Calvin,” in Church-State Relations in Ecumenical Perspective, ed. E.A. Smith (Pittsburgh: Duquense University Press, 1966), 176–217; John T. McNeill, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” JRel 26 (1946): 168–82; Mary Lane Potter, “The ‘Whole Office of the Law’ in the Theology of John Calvin,” JLR 3 (1985): 117–39; Paul Helm, “Calvin and Natural Law,” SBET 2 (1984): 5–22; idem, “Equity, Natural Law, and Common Grace,” in John Calvin’s Ideas, 347–88; and Susan E. Schreiner, “Calvin’s Use of Natural Law,” in A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics and Natural Law, ed. Michael Cromartie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 51–76. 12 I.v.1 (OS 3.44–5): “[…] in toto mundi opificio.” Cf. e.g., Comm. Rom 1:20 (CO 49.23– 4); Comm. Acts 14:17 (CO 48.327–8); Comm. Acts 17:26–7 (CO 48.414–6); Comm. Ps 19:lff (CO 31.194–8); Comm. Gen, Argumentum (CO 23.10–1).

56

Part One

the course of history.13 With respect to the first and more important of these aspects, Calvin claims that the whole creation is a “theater” (theatrum)14 in which the unmistakable “signs” (insignia)15 of God’s glory may be contemplated. The creation bears the imprint of its maker, and shows evident marks of God’s handiwork. Calvin enlarges upon the image of the creation as a “theater” of God’s glory by speaking of the creation as “a sort of mirror (speculum) in which we can contemplate God, who is otherwise invisible.”16 With this claim that God the Creator reveals himself through the creation as his “workmanship” and through his ordering of history, Calvin insists that there is no escaping the reality of God’s presence. Apart from his manifestation of himself in redemption, God has not left himself without a witness that promotes the true knowledge and worship of him. The final goal of the blessed life […] rests in the knowledge of God. Lest anyone, then, be excluded from access to happiness, he not only sowed in men’s minds that seed of religion of which we have spoken but revealed himself and daily discloses himself in the whole workmanship of the universe. As a consequence, men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him.17

4.2 The Knowledge of God the Creator from Scripture The occasion for Calvin’s decision to take up the knowledge of God the Creator from Scripture, which constitutes the second major part of his exposition in Book I of the Institutes, is his judgment that this universal presence of God, both in human life and in the whole creation, fails to achieve its intended purpose. On the one hand, the knowledge of God available in terms of the sensus divinitatis and the conscience “is either smothered or corrupted, partly by ignorance, partly by malice.”18 On the other hand, the knowledge of God available in the created order and the course of history is given in vain, since “we have not the eyes to see this unless they be illumined by the inner revelation of God through faith.”19 All that Calvin has affirmed about the knowledge of God the Creator only deprives us of any 13 I.v.7 (OS 3.51). 14 E.g., I.v.8 (OS 3.52); I.vi.2 (OS 3.62); I.xiv.20 (OS 3.170); II.vi.1 (OS 3.320). 15 I.v.1 (OS 3.45): “[…] verum singulis operibus suis certas gloriae suae notas insculpsit, et quidem adeo claras et insignes ut sublata sit quanlibet rudibus et stupidis ignorantiae excusatio.” 16 I.v.1 (OS 3.45): “[…] quod nobis vice speculi sit tam concinna mundi positio, in quo invisibilem alioqui Deum contemplari liceat.” 17 I.v.1 (OS 3.44–5). 18 I.iv.1–4 (OS 3.40–4) bears the heading: “Eandem notitiam partim inscitia, partim malitia vel suffocari vel corrumpi.” 19 I.v.14 (OS 3.59): “[…] ad illam perspiciendam non esse nobis oculos nisi interiore Dei revelatione per fidem illuminentur.” See I.v.4–15 (OS 3.47–60).

The Knowledge of God as Creator

57

excuse. For this knowledge actually issues in open revolt against God;20 the fabrication of idols according to our whim;21 alternating between “slavish fear” and “loathing” of God;22 and the superstitious confusion of the Creator with the creature.23 This must be credited to our account as we willfully distort what God so graciously gives to us.24 For this reason, a special revelation of God the Creator through Scripture has become necessary. [It is] needful that another and better help be added to direct us aright to the very Creator of the universe. It was not in vain, then, that he added the light of the Word by which to become known unto salvation […].25

As previously noted, Calvin’s discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator through Scripture consists of two parts, the first dealing with Scripture in its function of clarifying the obscured knowledge given in creation, and the second dealing with Scripture in its function of complementing this knowledge. Within the first part, Calvin employs his important and muchdiscussed image of Scripture as a “spectacles” by which we may “begin to read [the book of creation] distinctly.”26 In this respect, Scripture is able to communicate what creation no longer can due to the effects of sin;27 and it specifically warns against that idolatry which results from a misuse of God’s revelation in creation.28 So far as this clarification is concerned, the special revelation of God the Creator in Scripture adds nothing to our knowledge that is not otherwise available to us. When Calvin takes up Scripture’s additional role in complementing the knowledge given in creation, however, he refers particularly to its revelation of the doctrine of the 20 I.iv.2 (OS 3.41–2). 21 I.iv.3 (OS 3.42–3). 22 I.iv.4 (OS 3.43–4). 23 I.v.11–15 (OS 3.55–60). 24 Thus, each form of the knowledge of God as Creator, apart from faith in Christ, serves only to convict us before God’s judgment and to render us inexcusable. For example, our conscience, rather than serving to guide us, functions negatively to indicate how our disobedience is against better knowledge. Cf., e.g., I.v.15 (OS 3.59); Comm. Ezek 2:4, 5 (CO 40.69); Comm. Ezek 3:18 (CO 40.95); Comm. Ps 32.1 (CO 31.314). 25 I.vi.1 (OS 3.60). While this statement suggests that Calvin intends to turn also to the knowledge of God as Redeemer, he adds further on: “[…] here I shall discuss only how we should learn from Scripture that God, the Creator of the universe, can by sure marks be distinguished from all the throng of feigned gods” (I.vi.1 [OS 3.61]). Cf. I.vi.2 (OS 3.62–3); I.x.1 (OS 3.85–6). Though Calvin does refer in Book I to the knowledge of God the Redeemer—he cannot avoid doing so since the Creator and Redeemer are one, and the Creator is actually known through faith in Christ—he clearly intends to be consistent with his division of the material in terms of the twofold knowledge of God. 26 I.vi.1 (OS 3.60): “[…] specillis autem interpositis adiuti, distincte legere incipient: ita Scriptura confusam alioqui Dei notitiam in mentibus nostris colligens, discussa caligine liquido nobis verum Deum ostendit.” 27 I.vi.4 (OS 3.64). 28 I.x-xii (OS 3.85–108).

58

Part One

Trinity,29 the doctrine of the original creation of the world,30 and the doctrine of God’s providential care of the world and human creatures.31 None of these teachings would be available to us, if it were not for this special revelation. There are several features of Calvin’s discussion of these doctrines that merit brief attention, since they play a role in his articulation of the knowledge of God the Redeemer. Calvin’s treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity, while orthodox in the ecumenical and creedal sense of the term, is noteworthy for its emphasis upon the limitations of extra-biblical terms for describing the Trinity,32 and for its claim that the eternal Son is the Word “from which both all oracles and all prophecies go forth,” and the one through whom the world was made, whose “order or mandate” upholds all things.33 This latter emphasis is noteworthy in its relation to Calvin’s understanding of redemption as the Mediator’s restoration of the whole creation to order and as the re-establishment of his rule.34 On the subject of creation, Calvin argues that creation itself expresses God’s goodness and love toward us, and should lead us to thankfulness and trust in him. Specifically, he notes that the Genesis account of creation is “accommodated” to our capacity in such a way as to show by “the order of creation that he [God] created all things for man’s sake.”35 In his discussion of human nature as created by God, Calvin is at pains to absolve God of any responsibility for the intro29 I.xiii (OS 3.108–51). 30 I.xiv-xv (OS 3.152–87). 31 I.xvi-xviii (OS 3.187–227). 32 I.xiii.1–6 (OS 3.108–16). Calvin’s reticence in this regard is well illustrated by his refusal, at the request of Caroli, to sign the Athanasian Creed with its anathemas in 1537. On this incident and Calvin’s attitude toward the classical terminology, see Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 122; and E. Doumerge, Jean Calvin, 4.96–7. 33 I.xiii.7 (OS 3.117): “Hic enim videmus verbum pro nutu vel mandato Filii accipi, qui ipse aeternus et essentialis nutu vel mandato Filii accipi, qui ipse aeternus et essentialis est Patris Sermo.” Cf. Comm. John 1:1 (CO 47.1). In I.xiii.18 (OS 3.132), Calvin provides a summary of the relative distinction between the three “Persons” of the Trinity: “[…] quod Patri principium agendi, rerumque omnium fons et scaturigo attribuitur: Filio sapientia, consilium, ipsaque in rebus agendis dispensatio: at Spiritui virtus et efficacia assignatur actionis.” Though stated here in a rather formal and abstract fashion, this understanding of the relative distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit is concretely expressed by Calvin in terms of a Trinitarian development of the doctrine of creation and of redemption. For general treatments of Calvin’s understanding of the Trinity, see B.B. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, 189–286; Paul Owen, “Calvin and Catholic Trinitarianism,” CTJ 35/2 (2000): 262–81; T.F. Torrance, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” CTJ 25/2 (1990): 165–93; Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik, 154–79; Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 46–63; and Paul Helm, “The Trinity,” in John Calvin’s Ideas, 34–57. 34 See, e.g., Comm. Isa 65:25 (CO 37–434); Comm. John 12:31 (CO 47.293); Comm. 2 Thess 1:5 (CO 52.189). 35 I.xiv.22 (OS 3.172–3).

The Knowledge of God as Creator

59

duction of human sin and evil.36 In the whole of his discussion and analysis of the knowledge of God the Creator and providential Sustainer of all things, Calvin characteristically underscores the “practical” effect of this knowledge, which well accords with his general conception of the knowledge of God and ourselves.

4.3 Summary Although this is only a brief synopsis of Calvin’s discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator, it forms a basic outline of Calvin’s fundamental framework for the knowledge of God the Redeemer. Even though this knowledge, under the conditions of sin, is not properly appropriated apart from faith in Christ, Calvin begins here with a specific objective in view. He intends to propose a “conceptual or logical presupposition” (to use Dowey’s terminology) within which the redeeming action of God in Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit may be comprehended. Calvin’s discussion of the knowledge of God the Creator serves to establish the identity between the Triune Redeemer and Creator, and to affirm that redemption in Christ involves God’s free decision to remain faithful to his creative purpose, in spite of the sinful creature’s inexcusable unfaithfulness and disobedience. It is to Calvin’s treatment of the execution of this free decision and faithfulness that the next chapter turns. Only within the setting of Calvin’s understanding of the redeeming grace of God in Christ, the Mediator, do we find a discussion of our reception of God’s grace and its twofold benefit, justification and sanctification. Because of the obvious importance of the redemptive work of Christ for an interpretation of the “twofold grace of God,” our exposition of Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of God as Redeemer will be more extensive than that of the knowledge of God the Creator.

36

I.xv.8 (OS 3.185–7).

5. The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of God the Redeemer forms the heart of his theology. Here we enter for the first time into an area that directly relates to the “twofold grace of God.” Calvin’s treatment of the redeeming action of God in Christ, the Mediator, constitutes the “objective” basis for his discussion of its “subjective” reception through faith and its twofold benefit, justification and sanctification. Another way of stating the relation of this redemptive work of God in Christ to its reception would be in terms of the traditional distinction between Christ “for us” (pro nobis) and Christ “in us” (in nobis), which is the most immediate setting for Calvin’s articulation of the “twofold grace of God.” In order to summarize the redemptive work of Christ that Calvin presupposes in his exposition of the “twofold grace of God,” there are two matters that require our attention: 1) Calvin’s understanding of humanity’s sinful condition and need; and 2) Calvin’s understanding of God’s provision of a Mediator to meet that need. This twofold division of the material, while consistent with the way Calvin arranges the material in the Institutes, raises the question: why does Calvin proceed from a discussion of the knowledge of created and fallen humanity to a discussion of the knowledge of redemption in Christ?1 The most obvious answer, which corresponds to our earlier comments on the overall structure of Calvin’s theology, is that Calvin considers this to be a suitable and apt manner of preparing his reader for the knowledge of redemption in Christ. By exposing our need as sinners, especially as it contrasts with our original or created perfection, Calvin wants to lead his readers to seek salvation outside of themselves in Christ.2 Nonetheless, this answer still leaves us with a related question: whence does Calvin derive his understanding of the human condition apart from Christ? Is this an instance of “eristics” or “natural theology” in which Calvin establishes our need for redemption without an appeal to the reality and revelation of God’s grace in Christ? And if so, does Calvin admit a knowledge of ourselves that 1 Calvin treats the original perfection of man as created in I.xv (OS 3.173–87); he treats the fallen and sinful condition of man in II.i-v (OS 3.228–320). This twofold treatment corresponds to what Calvin terms the “twofold knowledge of ourselves.” See I.xv.1 (OS 3.173): “nostri cognitio […] duplex est”; II.i.1 (OS 3.228); Comm. Eph 2:3 (CO 51.163). 2 See, e.g., I.i.1 (OS 3.229). Cf. Premier Sermon de la Iustification (CO 23.697): “Voici donc le vray fondement pour bien bastir, c’est apres que nous aurons bien examiné quels nous sommes, ayans trouvé qu’il n’y a en nous que toute confusion, nous cerchions le remede ailleurs.”

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

61

may be derived from another source than the knowledge provided through Christ?3 In order to answer this question properly, several considerations need to be borne in mind. First, the purpose of this arrangement of topics is to establish the occasion (the human predicament) for redemption in Christ. Second, Calvin chooses to arrange the material in this fashion, not on the basis of a theological conviction that we can know ourselves properly apart from God’s revelation in Christ, but on the basis of an order of teaching that is governed by considerations other than the source of this knowledge. Calvin is interested in what constitutes an appropriate and persuasive preparation for the consideration of redemption in Christ. Third, there is ample evidence that Calvin’s entire presentation of the knowledge of ourselves, both as we were originally created and as fallen, is determined by his theological understanding of the grace of God in Christ. Accordingly, when he treats humanity’s original perfection, he notes that the true nature of the imago Dei, for example, is derived from the Scriptural witness concerning its renewal in Christ.4 And when he treats at length the sinful condition of humanity after the Fall, his treatment is based throughout on a reformational understanding of salvation sola gratia.5 While his teaching order may be from creation to Fall to redemption, his epistemological order remains from redemption to Fall and creation. This will become evident as we consider his exposition of humanity’s need and sinful condition. In Calvin’s treatment of the sinful human condition, he presupposes and anticipates his understanding of redemption in Christ, as well as his account of the twofold benefit of our reception of that redemption, justification and sanctification, the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God.”6 3 Paul Van Buren, Christ in Our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 3–4, puts this question well: “Calvin begins his treatment of the doctrine of Reconciliation with the problem of fallen man. It is not selfevident, however, that this should have been his starting place. Calvin has established in Book I of his Institutes that the knowledge of God must precede the knowledge of man, and that it is precisely this knowledge of God that has been lost to man, and which now can be recovered only by means of God’s word, faithfully heard. In Christ, that is, we learn what we are out of Christ. Would it not have been better, therefore, to begin with the solution rather than the problem?” 4 I.xv.4 (OS 3.179–81). 5 See, e.g., II.ii.20 (OS 3.262–3); Comm. Gal 2:21 (CO 50.200–1); Comm. Eph 1:10 (CO 51.151); Comm. Isa 42:1 (CO 37.59–60); Comm. Acts 10:43 (CO 48.249); Comm. John 1:29 (CO 47.26). Also cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.900): “Mais il faut aussi qu’il soit cognu sans tache aucune, et que sa purete viene devant les yeux, afin que nous apprehendions nos pechez, iusques a ce que nous ayons cognu que Iesus Christ est le miroir de toute perfection.” 6 No one would portray the predicament of humanity as Calvin does unless he was convinced that salvation is by grace alone through faith, i.e., unless Calvin’s understanding of God’s grace in Christ were presupposed. Cf. Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 13ff.

62

Part One

5.1 The Knowledge of Our Sinful Condition The whole of Calvin’s analysis of the knowledge of humanity’s sinful condition aims to lead to the conclusion that we must look outside ourselves for redemption. Genuine knowledge of ourselves consists, according to Calvin, in the humble recognition of our need, and in the repudiation of all proud self-confidence.7 Indeed, this holds true not only for the knowledge of ourselves as fallen sinners, but also for the knowledge of ourselves as creatures who bear God’s image. But knowledge of ourselves lies first in considering what we were given at creation and how generously God continues his favor toward us, in order to know how great our natural excellence would be if only it had remained unblemished; yet at the same time to bear in mind that there is nothing of our own, but that we hold on sufferance whatever God has bestowed upon us. Hence we are ever dependent on him. Secondly, to call to mind our miserable condition after Adam’s fall; the awareness of which, when all our boasting and self-assurance are laid low, should truly humble us and overwhelm us with shame.8

In his treatment of the Fall into sin, of the total corruption of human nature through original sin, and of the bondage of the will, Calvin seeks to establish such self-knowledge and remove any possible basis for continuing to boast in self-assurance before God, apart from his grace in Christ. The extent to which Calvin’s treatment of the sinful human condition is governed by his understanding of redemption, may be seen, firstly, in his understanding of the Fall into sin. Though it has not been adequately appreciated by interpreters of Calvin’s theology, a correlation obtains between his understanding of redemption by grace through faith, and his view of the Fall as rooted fundamentally in infidelity and distrust toward God. Calvin often speaks of “pride” (superbia)9 and “disobedience” (inobedientia)10 when describing the nature of this Fall. But, if the question is pressed, whence do pride and disobedience spring?, then Calvin answers by citing their source in infidelity (infidelitas) toward God.11 For this reason, Calvin claims that “faith alone humbles us,” whereas pride is characteristic of 7 II.i.3. (OS 3.230–1). The motif of humility is a common one in Calvin’s thought. The critical test of all true knowledge of ourselves coram Deo is whether it issues in a stance of humility. Cf. Serm. 2 Sam 6:20 (SC 1.163): “[…] car le fondement de la vraye pieté, cest adire de la crainte de Dieu et de son seruice, c’est humilité.” Serm. 2 Sam 14:19,20 (SC 1.408): “Quel est le commencement de la crainte de Dieu et nous assubiettir a luy? C’est humilite.” Also cf. Serm. Jer 18:1–10 (SC 6.142). 8 II.i.1 (OS 3.228). 9 E.g.: II.i.4 (OS 3.231); Comm. Ps 119:21 (CO 32.223): “[…] omnis rebellio ex superbia nascitur”; Comm. Hosea 10:13 (CO 42.429); Comm. Zeph 3:12 (CO 44.67). 10 II.i.4 (OS 3.231): “[…] initium ruinae apparet fuisse inobedientiam.” 11 II.i.4 (OS 3.232): “Proinde infidelitas radix defectionis fuit.”

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

63

unbelief;12 that distrust toward God is the “spring of impiety”;13 that “unbelief was the root of defection, just as faith alone unites us to God”;14 that the origin of Adam’s sin was unbelief toward God’s Word;15 that the “mother” (mater) of all evil deeds is unbelief;16 and that unbelief is the antithesis of faith, since it consists in the refusal to be “fully persuaded that God is true, and that what he promises is certain.”17 In addition to the various ways in which Calvin gives expression to the nature of the Fall as a broken relation to God, which roots in infidelity and unbelief, there is in his account of Christ’s temptation by Satan clear support for the idea that there is a parallel between the Fall, as an expression of infidelity, and redemption in Christ through faith.18 Calvin interprets this temptation as a “direct attack on Christ’s faith” (Christi fidem), the “sole object” of which was “for Christ to move away from God and to follow the dictates of infidelity” (dictabit infidelitatis).19 Consequently, the contrast between Christ, the second Adam, and the first Adam is one between fidelity and infidelity: whereas Christ remains fully persuaded that God’s Word and promise are true, Adam turns away in pride and disobedience since he distrusted and was not confident of that Word and promise. The remainder of Calvin’s treatment of humanity’s sinful condition consists of an account of original sin, or the corruption and guilt which follows upon this infidelity, and an account of the bondage of the will. Both topics serve to expose, not only our guilt, but also our inability to redeem ourselves apart from God’s gracious initiative in Christ. Calvin summarizes his understanding of the Fall and original sin as follows: We must, therefore, distinctly note these two things. First, we are so vitiated and perverted in every part of our nature that by this great corruption we stand justly condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. And this is not liability for another’s transgression. For, since it is said that we become subject to God’s judgment through Adam’s sin, we are to understand it not as if we, guiltless and undeserving, bore the guilt of his offense

12 Comm. Ps 119:21 (CO 32.223): “Nec temere superbos vocat omnes incredulos: quia sola fides est quae nos humiliat, et omnis rebellio ex superbia nascitur.” 13 Comm. Zeph 3:1–2 (CO 44.48): “non confisam […] fontem impietatis.” 14 Comm. Gen 3:6 (CO 23.60–1): “[…] infidelitas radix defectionis fuit: sicuti sola fides nos Deo coniungit.” 15 Comm. Gen 3:6 (CO 23.61): “Verum altius quaerenda est peccati origo et causa. Nunquam enim Deo repugnare ausi essent, nisi primum eius verbo increduli.” 16 Comm. Zeph 3:1,2 (CO 44.48); Comm. Isa 30:1 (CO 36.508); Comm. Mal 3:15 (CO 44.479–80); Comm. John 15:22 (CO 47.351); Comm. 1 Tim 1:13 (CO 52.258 ; Comm. Titus 1:15 (CO 52.417); Comm. Heb 10:38 (CO 55.142). 17 Comm. Zech 8:6 (CO 44.238). 18 Comm. Matt 4:3 (CO 45.131). 19 Comm. Matt 4:3 (CO 45.131).

64

Part One

but in the sense that, since we through this transgression have become entangled in the curse, he is said to have made us guilty. Yet not only has punishment fallen upon us from Adam, but a contagion imparted by him resides in us, which justly deserves punishment.20

As this statement indicates, Calvin understands original sin to consist both in a guilty status before God’s judgment, and in a corrupt condition.21 Though the corruption of original sin is not “natural,” since it represents a distortion of our original creation by God, neither is it acquired merely by “imitation.” Original sin, Calvin maintains, entails a “natural” corruption of human nature as originally created by God.22 The full consequences and extent of original sin, moreover, are especially evident for Calvin in that “man has now been deprived of freedom of choice and bound over to miserable servitude.”23 In his discussion of this servitude or bondage of the will, Calvin specifically disassociates his view from the opinion of those philosophers who trust in the power of understanding to control properly the will;24 from the tendency of the Church Fathers to admit a partially free will;25 and from the Scholastics of his own period who allowed a role for the human will in the accomplishment of salvation by way of their distinction between “operating” and “cooperating” grace.26 Against all such attempts to allow free will and to obscure the wholly gracious character of salvation, Calvin replies that man is “necessarily,” yet “without compulsion” from outside himself, a sinner, and that he is a “willing slave” of sin.27 It is simply not permissible, therefore, to assert 20

II.i.8 (OS 3.236–7). Calvin often speaks of this corrupt condition as something “inherited” or derived from a common progenitor. See, e.g., Comm. Gen 5:3 (CO 23.106); Comm. Gen 6:5 (CO 23.117); Comm. Gen 8:21 (CO 23.140); Comm. Ezek 18:20 (CO 40.440–1). However, he offers no explanation of the “how” of this inheritance other than to say it proceeds from God’s “ordinance” and does not rest upon “imitation.” Cf. Comm. John 3:6 (CO 47.57); II.i.7 (OS 3.236); II.i.6 (OS 3.234–5). 22 Calvin speaks of a “natural” corruption which is more than merely imitating in actual conduct a bad example; yet he asserts that it remains an “adventitious quality” (adventitia qualitas) which “did not flow from nature” (quae a natura non fluxerit). I.i.11 (OS 3.240). 23 II.ii (OS 3.241) bears the title: “Hominem arbitrii libertate nunc esse spoliatum, et miserae servituti addictum.” 24 II.ii.2–3 (OS 3.242–4). It is interesting to note that Calvin thinks it theologically important to distinguish the faculties of will and understanding; we sin willfully and against better knowledge. However, he leaves to philosophy the responsibility of inquiring more deeply into the question of the human constitution and the like. See I.xv.6–7 (OS 3.182–5). Cf. Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 84–87, for a brief discussion of Calvin’s use of the terms “mind,” “heart,” “soul,” and “will” in connection with his understanding of faith. 25 II.ii.2–3 (OS 3.242–4). 26 II.ii.6 (OS 3.248–9). Also see, e.g., II.iii.7 (OS 3.280–2); Comm. Ezek 18:32 (CO 40.456–7); Serm. Job 25:1–6 (CO 34.417); Serm. Isa 29:23 (SC 2.643). 27 II.ii.7 (OS 3.249). Cf. II.iii.5 (OS 3.278): “Haec igitur distinctionis summa observetur, hominem, ut vitiatus est ex lapsu, volentem quidem peccare, non invitum nec coactum: affectione 21

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

65

the power of free will and to claim that this power contributes in part to our salvation. For both original sin and the bondage of the will, as descriptive of the human predicament, deprive us of any sure ground for self-confidence or boasting before God. In order to complete this summary of Calvin’s portrayal of the sinful human condition, several further observations are required before we turn to his understanding of redemption in Christ. Since Calvin expresses himself so strongly on the pervasive corruption of human nature, the universal solidarity of our guilt before God’s judgment, and the bondage of the will, it has been alleged that he presents too bleak and misanthropic an account of the human predicament. However, there are several mitigating factors that must be noted when interpreting Calvin’s description of the sinful human condition. First, Calvin’s portrayal serves a single theological purpose, namely, to deprive us of any claim to “merit” in salvation.28 Second, this portrayal relates directly to what Calvin terms “heavenly” matters, and only indirectly to what he terms “earthly” matters.29 It does not concern whether we are naturally able to achieve what Calvin terms “civic virtue,” “proper order,” or “equity” in human society. For Calvin it is undoubtedly true that, wherever the truth expresses itself, it must be honored, for the “arts” and “sciences” are good gifts of God’s Spirit,30 however useless they might be in spiritual matters or in obtaining salvation.31 Calvin’s interest in describing human sinfulness is thoroughly theological. It is not his intention to deny his “humanistic” appreciation for those aspects of natural human life and thought that are commendable. Third, Calvin denies free will, not in order to exclude human responsibility and action in relation to God,32 but in order to exclude the idea of a “cooperative” action wherein salvation is conceived of as the common project of two parallel and even competing actors.33 And animi propensissima, non violenta coactione: propriae libidinis motu, non extraria coactione: qua tamen est naturae pravitate, non posse nisi ad malu moveri et agi.” 28 II.iii.6 (OS 3.279–80). The idea of “free will” leads inescapably, according to Calvin, to the idea of “merit” and obscures God’s exclusive glory in salvation. Cf., e.g., Serm. Isa 19:1–3 (SC 2.179); Serm. Isa 29:18–19 (SC 2.624); Serm. 2 Sam 22:2–4 (SC 1.628). 29 II.ii.13 (OS 3.256–7). 30 II.ii.15 (OS 3.258). 31 The failure to appreciate this distinction has led to a distorted interpretation of Calvin’s language about “total depravity” and the “bondage of the will.” There is no denying that Calvin does indeed use severe language in his depiction of the human predicament. Yet, again and again he indicates that his purpose is to remove any basis for merit in salvation, not to denigrate the excellence of human achievement in the arts and sciences, etc. See, e.g., II.ii.12 (OS 3.254–8.); Comm. 1 Cor 1:17 (CO 49.321): Comm. 1 Cor 3:19 (CO 49.359–60); Comm. 1 Cor 8:1 (CO 49.429); Serm. Job 32:4–10 (CO 35 23). 32 See, e.g., II.v.14–15 (OS 3.314–5). 33 See, e.g., II.iii.10 (OS 3.285–6); II.iii.13 (OS 3.289–90); II.iv.7 (OS 3.296–7); II.v.11 (OS 3.310–1); Comm. Ezek 18:32 (CO 40.456–7).

66

Part One

fourth, it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the knowledge of this predicament ultimately corresponds to the knowledge of God’s free initiative and redemptive action in Christ.34 Because Calvin bases his description of the fallen human condition upon the revelation of God’s grace in Christ, his entire account of the sinful human predicament aims to serve the general rule: “[L]et us not divide between him and us what he claims for himself alone.”35 By prefacing his account of redemption in Christ with this description of original sin and the bondage of the will, Calvin seeks to set forth the theological context for a proper understanding of the work of Christ. Rather than representing an exaggerated portrayal of human sin, therefore, this description functions as a kind of preparation for the knowledge of redemption (praeparatio Christi). While Calvin removes every ground for selfconfidence and boasting before God, he does so in the full awareness that there is another ground for confidence before God, namely, Christ himself, in whom we regain what we ourselves lack. For there is no danger of man’s depriving himself of too much so long as he learns that in God must be recouped what he himself lacks. Yet he cannot claim for himself ever so little beyond what is rightfully his without losing himself in vain confidence and without usurping God’s honor, and thus becoming guilty of monstrous sacrilege.36

Calvin interprets redemption as how believers recoup in Christ what they lack by virtue of sin. His description of the work of Christ, which follows his account of the fallen human condition, treats the manner in which Christ, both in his person and work,37 fulfills the office of Mediator by providing for our need and reconciling us to God. The importance of this aspect of Calvin’s theology cannot be overemphasized. Calvin himself affirms its importance when he declares that Christ is “both the object and center of our whole faith”;38 that he is the sole Mediator and communicator 34

II.iii.6 (OS 3.279): “Nam quum Dominus in ope ferenda, quod nobis deest largiatur, ubi constiterit quale sit in nobis illius opus, quae sit e converso nostra penuria, statim elucescet.” 35 II.iii.6 (OS 3.279 ): “[…] ne inter ipsum et nos partiamur quod sibi uni vendicat.” 36 II.ii.10 (OS 3.252). Cf. Comm. Phil 3:9 (CO 52.49): “Et certe nihil nobis deperit, dum ad Christum venimus nudi et exinanti. Quia quae ante falso nos habere putavimus, tunc incipimus vere obtinere. Melius ergo declarat quantae sint Christi divitiae: quia in ipso consequimur omnia, et invenimus.” 37 Calvin consistently urges us to retain the indissoluble unity between Christ’s person and his office or work; to separate them and to consider his person apart from his office is to risk a speculative understanding of Christ, one not controlled by his work on our behalf. Cf. Comm. John 1:49 (CO 47.36); Comm. John, Argumentum (CO 47.7); Comm. Luke 1:1 (CO 45.7); Comm. 1 Tim 2:8 (CO 52.363); Comm. Phil 3:10 (CO 52.50); Comm. Acts 1:1 (CO 48.2). 38 Comm. Rom 1:3 (CO 49.9): “[…] eum solum nobis proponi ad quem se tota fides nostra applicet et in quo consistat.”

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

67

of God’s goodness and love toward us;39 that the “whole sum” of the gospel is “contained in our knowledge of Christ”;40 and that “in him are all the parts of eternal life,” both in his redeeming work on our behalf and in his Spirit’s work of renewal within us.41 The subject of the knowledge of God as Redemer is of special interest to an interpretation of the “twofold grace of God,” since justification and sanctification constitute the two great benefits of Christ’s redemptive work. Our justification and sanctification, the two aspects of God’s grace in us, are wholly based upon this redemption in Christ, and Calvin’s discussion of them is shaped by his interpretation of Christ’s redemptive work. This calls for a summary examination of Calvin’s interpretation of redemption through Christ the Mediator. The first part of the summary will consider Calvin’s understanding of the incarnation or God’s union with us in Christ, and the second part will consider some important aspects of Calvin’s discussion of Christ’s work as Mediator.42

5.2 The Person of Christ Though Calvin’s interpretation of redemption in Christ primarily focuses upon his work and atoning death, he begins his discussion by outlining what this work presupposes, its conditio sine qua non: Christ, as our Mediator, represents in his person the full extent of God’s being-with-and-for-us.43 Since our infidelity, disobedience, and pride issue in a far-reaching breach in our fellowship with God, and since we are of ourselves unable and un39 Comm. Gal 3:19 (CO 50.216.): “Sic habendum est, nullam abusque mundi initio Dei communicationem fuisse cum hominibus, nisi intercedente aeterna eius sapientia vel filio.” Cf. Comm. Acts 7:30 (CO 48.144); Comm. John 1:16 (CO 47.17); Comm. Gen 12:3 (CO 23.177–8); Comm. Dan 7:27 (CO 41.85). 40 Comm. Rom 16:21 (CO 49.290): “Christi cognitione tota eius summa continetur.” Cf. Comm. Acts 13:47 (CO 48.312): “[…] tota salutis nostrae substantia in Christi persona subsistit”; Comm. 2 Tim 3:16 (CO 52.384): “[…] praecipua est scientia fides in Christo.” 41 Comm. John 9:37 (CO 47.232). 42 For more complete treatments of Calvin’s understanding of the redemptive work of Christ as Mediator, see John F. Jansen, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London: James Clarke & Co., LTD., 1956); Robert A. Peterson, Calvin’s Doctrine of Atonement (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983); Paul van Buren, Christ in our Place; Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, 117–53; Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 216–81; and Stephen Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). In his study, Edmondson adds his name to the list of those who seek to identify the “center” of Calvin’s theology in a particular doctrinal theme, in his case Calvin’s doctrine of the “offices” and mediatorial work of Christ. 43 Cf. the title of II.xii (OS 3.437): “Christum, ut Mediatoris officium praestaret, oportuisse fieri hominen.”

68

Part One

willing to “ascend” to him, God freely comes near and dwells with us in the person of Christ, whose name is “Immanuel.”44 For Calvin, Christ, as Deus manifestatus in carne, is the “pledge” (pignus) of God’s love and kindness toward us.45 We must “direct our gaze to Christ, in whom will be found the pledge of the divine love” and in whom, “as in a mirror, we may behold God’s fatherly love toward us all.”46 Rather than allowing ourselves to become lost in the labyrinth of our own imagination when it comes to discerning the nature of God’s being toward us, we need only direct our attention to the revealed love of God, which is displayed for all to see in his willingness to give himself through the Son.47 According to Calvin, we must begin with the reality of God’s love toward us in Christ the Mediator when we discuss redemption, for in him we discover the definitive reality of reconciliation and fellowship between God and sinful humanity. “True God, true man, one Person” (vere deus, vere homo, una persona)—this ancient formula forms the point of departure for Calvin’s whole interpretation of our redemption in Christ.48 Since Calvin places so much emphasis upon the atoning work of Christ as Mediator, the redemptive significance that he ascribes to the incarnation is often insufficiently appreciated. In an important summary statement of this redemptive significance, Calvin remarks: His [Christ the Mediator’s] task was so to restore us to God’s grace as to make of the children of men, children of God; of the heirs of Gehenna, heirs of the heavenly kingdom. Who could have done this had not the selfsame Son of God become the Son of man, and had not so taken what was ours, as to impart what was his to us, and to make what was his by nature ours by grace? Therefore, relying on this pledge (pignus), we trust that we are sons of God, for God’s natural Son fashioned for himself a body from our body, flesh from our flesh, bones from our bones, that he might be one 44

It is important to note how, at the outset of his treatment of redemption in Christ, Calvin underscores the free and gratuitous character of God’s being-with-us in Christ. Cf. II.xii.1 (OS 3.437): “De necessitate [i.e., of the incarnation] si quaeritur, non simplex quidem (ut vulgo loquuntur) vel absoluta fuit: sed manavit ex caelesti decreto, unde pendebat hominum salus.” Cf. Comm. Rom 5:8 (CO 49.93); Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.666). 45 I.xii.1 (OS 3.438). Cf. II.xii.3 (OS 3.440): “[…] communen naturam pignus esse nostrae cum Filio Dei societatis.” Congregation sur la divinite’ de Jesus Christ (CO 47.446): “[…] mais ils [i.e., the Fathers under the Old Covenant] n’ont point eu le gage de l’amour de Dieu et de leur adoption. Car quand Iesus Christ est venu au monde, alors Dieu nous a signé et scellé son amour paternelle.” 46 Comm. John 15:9 (CO 47.342): “Ergo in Christum coniiciendi sunt oculi, in quo reperietur expositum divini amoris pignus. […] paternum erga nos omnes Dei amorem in ipso non secus ac in speculo contemplari licet […].” Cf. Comm. John 11:14 (CO 47.259–60); Comm. Titus 3:4 (CO 52.428). 47 Comm. John 11:4 (CO 47.259–60); Comm. Titus (CO 52.428). 48 Cf. II.xiv (OS 3.458–71), where Calvin discusses the person of Christ, the Mediator, a discussion that largely follows the Chalcedonian and Nicene Creeds. Also cf. Congregation sur la divinité de Jesus Christ (CO 47.465–84); Serm. de la Nativité de Jesus Christ (CO 46.955–68).

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

69

with us. Ungrudgingly, he took our nature upon himself to impart to us what was his, and to become both Son of God and Son of man in common with us.49

Consequently, the whole of our redemption or restoration to fellowship with God depends, for Calvin, upon the unique reality of God’s union with us in Christ. As this statement attests, this union is described by Calvin in language which, while avoiding a confusion of Christ’s “natures,” reflects the most intimate personal or hypostatic union of God with us. In a similar passage, Calvin declares that “in assuming our flesh, he [Christ] has brought himself into one and the same body with us, that we should be flesh of his flesh.”50 For this reason, Calvin understands Christ’s person to express both the “spirit of fatherly love” and “a brotherly love for those for whose sake he became man”;51 both the “fountain” (fons) of the Father’s goodness and benefits52 and the “ladder” (scala) by which we may easily ascend to him.53 Because he is vere Deus, vere homo, una persona, he is the one through whom we may have access to God the Father without fear of reproach, and the one through whom the Father “holds out his hand to us” as “our brother.”54 In Christ, and in Christ alone, is effected that fellowship with God for which we were created, but which has been vitiated through sin. Calvin presupposes this reality of the incarnation, understood in this sense and with this redemptive import, whenever he discusses Christ’s work or office. Before turning to Calvin’s exposition of Christ’s work or office, however, two additional points must be made in order to complete this account of Christ’s person as Mediator. Calvin states at the outset of his discussion of redemption that the incarnation presumes God’s free decision to dwell 49 III.xii.2 (OS 3.438–9). This statement, which is not an isolated or uncharacteristic one, should give pause to those who claim that Calvin attributes insufficient significance to the hypostatic union as itself of saving significance. For example, Ganoczy, Calvin, 86, interprets this union as merely an “external” one: “Mais cette fraternité, meme si elle nous est proposée par amour, n’est qu’adoptive et juridique et, comme telle, exterieure […]. L’union hypostatique est tout entière ordonnée a la justification ‘forensique’ et non a la sanctification ontologique.” 50 Comm. Matt 8:3 (CO 45.231–2): “Carnem enim nostram suscipiens non modo nos dignatus est manus suae contactu, sed in unum idemque corpus nobiscum coaluit, ut essemus caro de carne eius.” 51 Comm. Luke 19:41 (CO 45.576): “Caeterum hoc fletu testatus est, non modo fraterne se diligere, in quorum gratiam fuerat homo factus, sed paternae quoque dilectionis spiritum a Deo in humanam naturam transfusam esse.” 52 Comm. Isa 12:3 (CO 36.253): “Porro fons iste Christus est, in quo nobis omnia Dei bona communicantur.” 53 Comm. Luke 8:38 (CO 45.272): “Quanquam autem Christus scala est, per quam ad Deum patrem conscenditur […].” Cf. Comm. Gen 28:12 (CO 23.391). 54 Comm. Heb 4:15 (CO 55.54): “[…] non procul quarendum esse mediatorem, quum nobis Christus ultro manum porrigat: non esse causam cur Christi maiestate absterreamur, quum nobis sit frater.” Cf. Serm. de la Nativité de Jesus Christ (CO 46.956): “[…] il a vestu nostre chair et qu’il s’est fait nostre frere […].”

70

Part One

with us; it presumes our needy condition and expresses the full extent of God’s gracious response to it. Yet Calvin also acknowledges that, “[e]ven if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly for him to reach God without a Mediator.”55 Elsewhere he expands upon this acknowledgment by claiming that both men and angels are in need of a Mediator for fellowship to exist between them and the Creator, irrespective of sin.56 Calvin does not enlarge upon this understanding of the eternal Son’s mediation apart from the Fall and sin; his orientation remains almost exclusively upon redemption.57 Nevertheless, this understanding is consistent with his claim that all things are created and ordered through the Son, and that redemption involves the restoration of all things through him.58 The Mediator of creation and redemption is one and the same, and his restoration of fellowship between God and humanity in redemption represents, in this respect, the reassertion of his claim and rightful place as Mediator of creation. There is a second and related point that needs to be made about Calvin’s understanding of the incarnation. This point concerns the so-called extracalvinisticum, or Calvin’s claim that the incarnate Son continues to fill and rule over all things “beyond the flesh” with which he has identified himself. In the locus classicus for this understanding, Calvin states that the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the whole world even as he had done from the beginning!59

Though numerous interpretive difficulties are raised by this passage, it is of interest here as it illuminates Calvin’s understanding of Christ’s office as Mediator of creation and redemption, and especially his understanding of the relation between them. When this understanding of the incarnation is 55

II.xii.1 (OS 3.437–8). On this aspect of Christ’s office as Mediator, see Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 61–100 passim; and H.A. Oberman, “Die ‘Extra’-Dimension in der theologie Calvins.” 56 See, e.g., II.xii.4 (OS 3.440); Comm. Eph 1:10 (CO 51.151); Comm. Col 1:20 (CO 52.89); Comm. Matt 3:17 (CO 45.127); Congregation sur la divinité de Jesus Christ (CO 47.477–8). 57 Due to his characteristic concern about speculative inquiry and attempts to circumvent the given revelation of God in Christ, Calvin finds presumptuous any treatment of Christ’s work that does not focus upon his redemptive relation to us. Thus he finds, for example, any investigation into the question, Cur Deus homo?, apart from the grace of reconciliation, an illegitimate and unfruitful undertaking. Cf., e.g., II.xii.4 (OS 3.440–1). 58 See, e.g., Comm. Isa 65:25 (CO 37.434); Comm. John 12:31 (CO 47.293); 2 Thess 1:5 (CO 52.189). 59 II.xiii.4 (OS 3.458). For a comprehensive study of this issue and its significance for an interpretation of Calvin’s theology, see Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology.

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

71

coupled with Calvin’s references to Christ’s office as Mediator of creation, Calvin’s peculiar insistence upon the twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer again comes into focus. Both of these points, which complete his understanding of Christ’s role as Mediator, identify the Redeemer with the Creator and intimate that redemption relates to creation as the reaffirmation of the Creator’s claim upon, and the re-establishment of his rule over, the creation.60

5.3 The Work of Christ Assuming this general interpretation of Christ’s person as Mediator in respect to both creation and redemption, it remains for us to consider Calvin’s more particular treatment of his office or redeeming work. Since this latter treatment is a complex and multifaceted one, it can only be summarized with great difficulty and at the risk of oversimplification. Nonetheless, Calvin provides several summary statements of his own, which may guide our discussion. Two of these, the first from the Institutes Book II, and the second from his commentary on John 9:37, are especially helpful for this purpose. The second requirement [beyond the “necessity” of the incarnation, contingent upon God’s free determination to redeem his fallen creatures] of our reconciliation with God was this: that man, who by his disobedience had become lost, should by way of remedy counter it with obedience, satisfy God’s judgment, and pay the penalties for sin. Accordingly, our Lord came forth as true man and took the person and the name of Adam in order to take Adam’s place in obeying the Father, to present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to God’s righteous judgment, and, in the same flesh, to pay the penalty that we had deserved.61 But the chief thing in faith is to know that our sins are purged by the sacrifice of his death and are reconciled to God; that his resurrection was a victory over vanquished death; that we are renewed by his Spirit so that, dead to the flesh and sin, we may live unto righteousness; that he is the only Mediator; that the Spirit is the earnest of our adoption; in short, that in him are all the parts of eternal life.62 60 Willis sets forth well the significance of these two points in Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 71: “There is an intimate relation between the ‘extra Calvinisticum’ and Calvin’s double use of ‘Mediator.’ Christ as Eternal Son mediated the divine ordering of the universe from its beginning; Christ as Eternal Son manifested in the flesh performed the reconciling mediation without the cessation or diminution of his mediation of the divine ordering of the universe. The Eternal Son’s ordering of creation according to the Father’s will is the more comprehensive category, and his reordering and restoring of rebellious man are special forms and instances of the inclusive office of the Son. It is the same Person who orders unfallen creation and who reconciles rebellious creation.” 61 II.xii.3 (OS 3.439). 62 Comm. John 9:37 (CO 47.232): “Atqui hoc in fide praecipuum est, ut sciamus sacrificio mortis eius expiata esse peccata, et nos Deo reconciliatos esse: resectionem devictae mortis trium-

72

Part One

In these two compact and representative statements, Calvin sets forth his comprehensive understanding of Christ’s redemptive office or work. In order to reach this section’s objective, a summary of Calvin’s understanding of redemption in Christ, it is necessary to consider three aspects of this office which are integral to his understanding and which are suggested by these statements: Christ’s obedience, his atoning death, and his victory. 1. The first aspect of Christ’s work mentioned by Calvin is his life of obedience. For Calvin, Christ’s work, which is something done on our behalf and as our substitute, consists firstly in “the whole course of his obedience.”63 Christ “became the cause (causa) of our salvation because he made us just in the sight of God, when he remedied the disobedience of Adam by a contrary act of obedience.”64 Just as through the infidelity and disobedience of Adam all have fallen from fellowship with God, so through the fidelity and obedience of Christ, the second Adam, all who through faith are engrafted into him are restored to that fellowship.65 According to Calvin, Christ provides a remedy for our condition as rebellious children who are guilty of turning away from the Father, since he does for us what we were unable and unwilling to do ourselves: live in a manner consistent with our status as God’s children. Throughout the whole course of his life of obedience, he fulfilled all righteousness and proved himself worthy of the Father’s approbation as the “beloved Son” with whom he was wellpleased. 2. However, the focal point of Calvin’s understanding of Christ’s redemptive office is found in his conception of Christ’s atoning death. As is evident from his numerous references to it, Christ’s death is for Calvin the single most important moment in his life of obedience, so much so that Calvin refers to it as “embracing” in itself “the whole of perfect salvation.”66 phum esse: nos spiritu eius renovari, ut carni et peccato mortui iustitiae vivamus: ipsum esse unicum mediatorem: spiritum eius adoptionis nostrae arrham esse: in ipso denique constare omnes vitae aeternae partes.” 63 II.xvi.5 (OS 3.485–6). It should be evident from this passage, as well as those just cited, that Calvin conceives of the whole of Christ’s life and work as pro nobis and substitutionary. For this reason, Van Buren, Christ in Our Place, quite correctly makes the idea of substitution the focus of his study of Calvin’s doctrine of reconciliation. 64 Comm. Heb 5:9 (CO 55.64): “Factus ergo fuit causa salutis, quia iustitiam nobis comparavit apud Deum, quum inobedientiam Adae contrario remedio sustulit.” Cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.835): “Car pourquoy a-il vestu nostre chair et nature, sinon pour reparer toutes nos rebellions par son obeissance, afin de nous acquerir plene et parfaite iustice devant Dieu son Pere?” 65 Comm. Rom 5:17 (CO 49.100). 66 II.xvi.5 (OS 3.486): “Quamobrem in symbolo fidei quod Apostolicum vocant, optimo ordine statim a natalibus Christi fit transitus ad mortem et resurrectionem, ubi perfectae saltis summa consitit.” George S. Hendry, The Gospel of the Incarnation (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958), 69–70, expresses a common criticism of Calvin’s doctrine of redemption: that he places too

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

73

Just as his whole life of obedience was a substitutionary act and remedy in contrast to our disobedience, so also Christ’s atoning death was a substitutionary event in which he took our place by being condemned as a sinner, by sustaining the punishment for sin, and by offering himself as a sacrifice, thus making satisfaction for sin. The importance of this aspect of Christ’s redemptive work requires that we briefly elaborate each of these themes and consider a difficult interpretive question it raises. In his interpretation of the saving significance of Christ’s death, Calvin invariably utilizes terminology appropriate to a juridical and sacrificial setting.67 Accordingly, the point of departure for his interpretation is Christ’s willingness, though himself wholly righteous and innocent, to take upon himself our guilt and to suffer its condemnation. For this reason, Calvin places a great deal of emphasis upon the importance of Christ’s trial before Pilate, since this trial teaches us “that the penalty to which we were subject had been imposed upon this righteous man.”68 By submitting to judgment, Christ “took the role of a guilty man and evildoer,”69 became “accursed” for us,70 and “was substituted as guilty for others.”71 Therefore, Calvin opens his treatment of Christ’s atoning death by emphasizing the fact that Christ voluntarily allowed our sins and our guilt to be imputed to him, thereby substituting himself for us by identifying himself completely with our guilty status before God. Furthermore, having been condemned in our place and adjudged as guilty, Christ offered himself in death as a sacrificial victim, “expiating” (expians) our sins and “satisfying” (satisfaciens) the justice and “wrath of God” (iram Dei) against them.72 Calvin interprets Christ’s death, therefore, as an expiatory sacrifice that much emphasis upon the cross to the exclusion of Christ’s incarnate life. While this criticism validly discerns that the preponderance of Calvin’s attention is given to the cross, what we have discussed with respect to the importance of the incarnation must also be borne in mind. 67 He does not, however, use such terminology to the exclusion of the language of victory. Cf., e.g., Serm. Micah 5:3 (SC 5.160): “Car nous scavons de faict que Jesus Christ par sa mort a acquiz à tous les siens vie eternelle. C’a esté la vraye victoire et le tryumphe qu’il a obtenu allencontre du diable, du monde et du peché.” Also cf. Comm. John 13:31 (CO 47.316–7); Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.842); Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.917–8); Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.602). 68 II.xvi.5 (OS 3.487–8). Cf., e.g., II.xvi.5 (OS 3.489); II.xvi.6 (OS 3.489–91); Comm. Gal 3:13 (CO 50.209–10); Comm. Isa 53:10 (CO 37.263); Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.834, 853). 69 II.xvi.5 (OS 3.488). 70 Comm. Gal 3:13 (CO 50.209–10). 71 Comm. John 19:1 (CO 47.407): “[…] ab omni culpa immunem pro aliis reum substitui […].” 72 This constitutes the first part of Christ’s priestly office; the second part involves his intercession at the “right hand of God” after his resurrection and ascension. Cf. II.xv.6 (OS 3.480–1); and Jansen, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Work of Christ, 93ff.

74

Part One

removes the guilt of sin,73 and as a submission to judgment that “appeases” God’s just displeasure with human disobedience.74 Through his assumption of our guilt and his sacrificial offering for us, Christ’s cross represents our release from condemnation and our reception into fellowship with God. Together with Christ’s life of obedience and righteousness, this atoning death—itself the highest expression of that obedience—constitutes our reconciliation with God and is the basis upon which God the Father freely pardons our sin.75 Noteworthy in this interpretation of Christ’s atoning death is Calvin’s use of terms and concepts reminiscent of Anselm’s satisfaction theory of the atonement. While this study will not attempt a comparison of Calvin’s view with that of Anselm or of others whose views were influential during the period of the Reformation, this interpretation in terms of substitution, satisfaction, or appeasement, does raise an issue that cannot be avoided if an adequate synopsis of this aspect of Calvin’s interpretation is to be attained. The issue is: does Calvin conceive of this satisfaction as wholly directed to God, that is, as a work of the man Jesus that brings about a change in God’s relation to sinful humanity? Or, to state it otherwise, in what sense are we to interpret Calvin’s references to the wrath of God toward us, as well as his corollary references to Christ’s death as sustaining and appeasing that wrath? Fortunately, Calvin himself directly addresses this question, repudiating any inference that there is a contradiction between God’s mercy and wrath, or that there is a fundamental change in God’s relation to us brought about by Christ’s atoning death. We are rather to interpret God’s wrath against sin as fully consonant with his love and mercy. Calvin quotes with approval the following comment of Augustine: Thus in a marvelous way he [God] loved us while he hated us. For he hated us for what we were that he had not made; yet because our wickedness had not entirely consumed his handiwork, he knew how at the same time, to hate in each one of us what he had not made, and to love what he had made.76 73

Calvin repeatedly refers to Christ’s death as an “expiatory sacrifice.” See, e.g., Comm. Dan 11:25 (CO 41.181–2); Comm. Rom 8:3 (CO 49.140); Comm. Heb 9:26 (CO 55.119); Comm. John 12:27 (CO 47.290–1); Comm. Luke 23:28 (CO 45.762–3). 74 See, e.g., II.xvi.5 (OS 3.488–9); II.xvi.10 (OS 3.495); Comm. Heb 9:22 (CO 55.116); Comm. John 12:12 (CO 47.281); Comm. Col 1:20 (CO 52.88). 75 II.xvi.5 (OS 3.485–9). 76 II.xvi.4 (OS 3.485); quotation from Augustine, John’s Gospel CX.6. There are a number of difficult questions relating to the interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement. A common error among interpreters is the tendency to emphasize one aspect of it to the exclusion of others. Calvin simply has no single, comprehensive “theory” of the atonement; his view comprises most of the themes found in the “classical,” “moral-influence,” and “satisfaction” theories. Though the emphasis he places upon the cross as an expiatory sacrifice and satisfaction for sin bears

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

75

When Calvin speaks of God’s “wrath” and “anger,” then, such language denotes God’s displeasure with us only “insofar as we are sinners.”77 It does not refer to a displeasure with us as “his own workmanship,” but a detesting of “our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image.”78 Perhaps more important than this distinction between God’s love toward us and his wrath toward our sin, however, is Calvin’s conviction that the satisfaction that Christ’s death accomplishes was made by God and not merely to him. Calvin sees the whole of Christ’s redemptive work, including his death, as a singular token of the love and mercy of God the Father. Thus Calvin insists that Christ was never “outside God’s grace,” since the “will of the Father always reposed in him.”79 In him and especially in his atoning death, the Father “anticipates us by his mercy.”80 His atoning death relates to the love of God as an “effect” to its “final cause.”81 Calvin willingly admits, therefore, that when we speak of this great mystery in the language of satisfaction and sacrifice, we are speaking in an inadequate and even misleading manner. Nevertheless, however much this language of God’s wrath and of satisfaction for sin may be “accommodated to our capacity” and therefore not to be taken literally, Calvin insists on the need to use it, since it serves an important function: it underscores the full extent of the Father’s love for us in Christ and allows us to “better understand how miserable and ruinous our condition is apart from Christ.”82 When he uses this language to interpret Christ’s death, Calvin believes that he does so affinities to Anselm’s view, this is easily overdrawn and the themes of Christ’s death as a “victory” or even as an “example” for us are overlooked. On this question, see Van Buren, Christ in Our Place; Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, trans. by O. Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1934), 438ff, 458, 507; and Albrecht Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, trans. by J.S. Black (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872), 206ff. 77 Comm. Rom 5:10 (CO 49.94): “[…] quia Deus peccatum odio habet, nos quoque illi esse exosos quatenus peccatores sumus.” 78 Comm. Rom 3:25 (CO 49.62): “Non enim detestatur in nobis Deus opus suum, id est, quod conditi sumus homines: sed nostram immunditiem, quae lucem imaginis suae exstinguit.” Cf. Comm. John 3:16 (CO 47.64); Comm. 2 Cor 13:14 (CO 50.154–6); Comm. Ezek 18:1–4 (CO 40.424). 79 Comm. Gal 3:13 (CO 50.210): “Itaque neque extra Dei gratiam esse potuit, et tamen sustinuit iram eius […]. Ergo semper voluntas patris in illo acquievit.” In this sense, Christ’s suffering itself is a “gage” or “tesmoignage” of the Father’s infinite love. Cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.895); Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.644). 80 II.xvi.2 (OS 3.438–4); II.xvi.3–4 (OS 3.484–5). 81 Comm. John 17:23 (CO 47.388–9). Cf. Comm. John 17:26 (CO 47.390–1); Comm. John 3:16 (CO 47.64); Comm. 2 Cor 13:14 (CO 50.154–6). 82 II.xvi.2 (OS 3.483): “Huius generis locutiones ad sensum nostrun sunt accomodatae, ut melius intelligamus quam misera sit et calamitosa extra Christum nostra conditio.” Cf. Serm. Deut 5:8–10 (CO 26.261): “Il n’y a aucan courroux en Dieu: mais pource que nous ne le pouvons pas comprehende tel qu’il est, il faut qu’il s’accomode à nostre rudesse.” Also cf. Comm. 2 Cor 5:19 (CO 50.71–2); Comm. 1 John 4:10 (CO 55.354).

76

Part One

following the example of Scripture, and that this gives expression to the profound mystery of Christ’s cross. The cross testifies simultaneously and paradoxically to both the “immeasurable goodness” of God and “how much God abominates sin.”83 3. Though it comprises a number of discrete elementsamong them, Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and heavenly session—the third and last important aspect of Calvin’s treatment of Christ’s redemptive work may be described as his victory over sin and death.84 By virtue of his resurrection from the dead, his ascension, and his session at the “right hand of God,” Christ exercises his office as Mediator, both as a priestly intercessor and as a kingly ruler governing his people through the operation of his Spirit. Calvin interprets Christ’s resurrection in its relation first of all to his death: “[T]hrough his death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection, righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that—thanks to his resurrection—his death manifested its power and efficacy to us.”85 In this respect, Christ’s resurrection represents the “completion” of our salvation,86 for by raising him from the dead God set his seal of approval upon all that Christ had done, exalting him to the kingdom of light so that “he might freely give his people righteousness and life.”87 With his resurrection, Christ emerges as “victor over death, possessing the power of new life, assuring our adoption, exerting the power of his Spirit and proving himself God’s Son.”88 Through his death and resurrection, Christ has broken through the condemnation of death and has exhibited in his own person that power of new life, which he now imparts to us through the operation of his Spirit. As noted earlier, Calvin understands Christ’s redemptive work as the resurrected and ascended Mediator to include both the aspects of priestly intercession and kingly rule. Christ’s continuing intercession, which together with his atoning death comprises the sum of his priestly office, involves his appearing “before the Father’s face as our constant advocate and 83 Comm. John 19:17 (CO 47.413–4). Also cf. Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.625, 649). 84 See Comm. 1 Cor 15:57 (CO 49.565), for a summary description of Christ’s victory. In his own person, Christ destroys sin and death, and procures for us life and liberty through the Spirit who raised him from the dead. 85 II.xvi.13 (OS 3.500). 86 Comm. 1 Cor 15:3 (CO 49.538): “Caeterum quum alibi scriptura solam mortem commemorat, sciamus tunc in morte resurrectionem contineri: sed quum distinct nominantur, in illa (sicuti videmus) salutis nostrae initium est, in hac complementum.” Cf. Comm. Phil 3:10 (CO 52.50). 87 Comm. Rom 4:25 (CO 49.87–8). 88 Comm. Matt 28:1–7, Mk 16:1–7, Luke 24:1–8 (CO 45.792). Cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.951).

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

77

intercessor.”89 Just as in his death, so also in his ascension and intercession, Christ is our advocate, the one who takes up our cause, willingly identifies his person with ours, and pleads our case with the Father.90 Of special important to Calvin’s treatment of Christ’s redemptive office as Mediator, however, is his understanding of Christ’s kingly rule. Though Christ continues to be the Mediator and sustainer of the whole creation91 with his session at the “right hand of God,” Christ also exercises his kingship redemptively by sharing with us all that he has received from the Father through his Spirit.92 Not only does Christ continue to exercise his rule as Mediator of creation, as Mediator of redemption he also begins to re-assert and re-establish that rule in the lives of his rebellious subjects. He does this through the power of the Spirit, regenerating his people and vanquishing the dominion of sin and death.93 Calvin understands the resurrected and ascended Christ to exercise the whole power of God’s dominion on his behalf and as his “deputy”: “You see the purpose of that ‘sitting’: that both heavenly and earthly creatures may look with admiration upon his majesty, be ruled by 89 II.xv.6 (OS 3.481). Cf. II.xvi.16 (OS 3.504); Comm. 1 John 2:1 (CO 55.309); Comm. 1 Tim 2:6 (CO 52.272). 90 II.xvi.18 (OS 3.505). In describing this aspect of Christ’s priestly office, Calvin emphasizes the consolation it provides the believer. “How,” he asks in this passage, “could our advocate condemn his clients?” Cf. Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.688): “[…] le throne de Dieu n’est plus un throne de maieste pour nous espovanter, mais il nous convie doucement et d’une bonte paternelle, d’autant que nous y, venons au nom et par le moyen, de ce sacrificateur qu’il nous a ordonne.” Perhaps this is the place to mention the vigorous debate regarding Calvin’s view of the extent or design of the atonement: did Calvin view the design of the atonement to be for the elect alone, or for all human beings? Since this question intersects with the broader issue of the continuity between Calvin and later (Scholastic) Calvinism, which was often denied by neoorthodox interpreters, it has received considerable attention. For an interpretation of Calvin that emphasizes the discontinuity between Calvin and later Calvinists on this question, see R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1997 [1979]); Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969); Basil Hall, “Calvin Against the Calvinists,” in John Calvin, ed. G.E. Duffield (Appleford, Abingdon, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966), 19–37. For an interpretation that emphasizes a greater degree of continuity between Calvin and the Calvinists, see Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982); idem, “Calvin, English Calvinism and the Logic of Doctrinal Development,” SJT 34 (1981): 179–85; and Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,” WTJ 47/2 (1985): 197–225. Helm correctly observes that Calvin does not explicitly affirm definite or limited atonement, but this view is most congenial to the trajectories of his theology. Cf. Peterson, Calvin’s Doctrine of Atonement, 90–1, who argues that the question is unable to be answered, since it was not explicitly raised in the context of Calvin’s writing. 91 Comm. Luke 23:43 (CO 45.775). 92 II.xv.4 (OS 3.476). Cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.951). 93 II.xv.4 (OS 3.475–7). Cf. Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.602).

78

Part One

his hand, obey his nod, and submit to his power.”94 The ascended Lord continues to be the Mediator of our redemption who, as our priest, advocates our cause before the Father and, as our King, claims us for himself and the service of his will.

5.4 Summary Our summary of Calvin’s description of redemption in Christ the Mediator completes this study’s consideration of the larger theological and Christological setting for his treatment of the “twofold grace of God.” Calvin’s understanding of our reception of this grace of God in Christ through the operation of the Spirit and the gift of faith, since it forms the immediate occasion for his exposition of the “twofold grace of God,” will be treated in the following chapter. A conclusion must now be drawn with respect to the question that was posed at the beginning of the first part of our study: what is the theological context within which Calvin broaches the subject of the “twofold grace of God” and without which it remains unintelligible? What is the significance of the overall structure of Calvin’s theology for an understanding of his doctrine of the “twofold grace of God”? We have seen that Calvin’s theology represents his summary of the knowledge of God and ourselves that is derived from the revelation and Word of God. Each of its doctrinal perspectives is based upon this foundation. In his exposition, Calvin chooses to arrange the material in a roughly historical fashion, proceeding from creation to fall and then to redemption. Despite Calvin’s conviction that this knowledge is acquired through faith in Christ, its normative—though not exclusive—source, he structures his theology according to the twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer and according to the Trinitarian pattern of the Apostle’s Creed. That is, he follows a structure which corresponds to the “economy” of the opera ad extra of the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This structure is, for Calvin, representative of an ordo docendi that serves the specific objective of providing a persuasive witness to redemption in Christ, which is undoubtedly the focal point of all his theological writing. It constitutes an apt preparation for Christ (praeparatio Christi): first, by identifying the Triune Redeemer with the Triune Creator, and second, by contrasting the gratuitous mercy and faithfulness of God in Christ with our inexcusable disobedience and infidelity. According to Calvin, this order of treatment 94 II.xvi.15 (OS 3.503). According to Calvin, the “right hand of God” is a metaphor that denotes Christ’s exercise of the Father’s dominion as his “deputy.” See, e.g., Comm. Acts 2:33 (CO 48.47); Comm. Matt 22:44 (CO 45.619); Comm. Eph 1:20 (CO 51.158).

The Knowledge of God as Redeemer

79

persuasively witnesses to and reflects the unity of the Triune God’s being and action toward us; it suggests that redemption involves the Triune Creator’s free decision to remain faithful to his creative purpose, to re-establish and re-affirm his claim upon the creation. Calvin’s theology is governed by a pervasive vision of the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer and of ourselves as his redeemed creatures. Within this comprehensive theological context, Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” must be understood as a particular doctrinal perspective upon the knowledge of the Triune God as Creator and Redeemer. It presupposes, as an account of the twofold benefit of the grace of God in Christ, all of the important aspects of this knowledge that have been discussed: the Triune Creator’s free decision to redeem us and to remain faithful to his creative purpose; the execution of that decision in the person and work of Christ the Mediator who, as Deus manifestatus in carne, is the singular pledge of the Father’s fidelity and love; Christ’s life of obedience as a remedy for our infidelity and disobedience; Christ’s assumption of the role of a guilty person and his consequent suffering and death in our place; and Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and heavenly session, in virtue of which he continues to advocate our cause before the Father and to rule over us through his Spirit, who is the earnest of our adoption and the source of our sanctification. It also anticipates Calvin’s treatment of the church and sacraments as the external means whereby the grace of God in Christ and its twofold benefit are communicated to believers. Though we have not often used the explicit language of “justification” and “sanctification,” the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God,” it will become evident in the following chapters that Calvin’s understanding of this particular subject is informed by this understanding of the Triune Creator’s redemption in Christ through the operation of the Spirit. The “twofold grace of God” expresses the way in which this redemption radically affects and transforms human existence, when it is received and appropriated through the operation of the Spirit and through the gift of faith.

PART TWO

“THE TWOFOLD GRACE OF GOD”: JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION

6. Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God” Part Two Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God” The preceding chapters provided an account of the theological context of the “twofold grace of God” within the comprehensive scope of Calvin’s theology. It is now possible to take up directly the question of the nature of this twofold grace itself, which Calvin understands as the two benefits of our reception and appropriation of God’s redemption in Christ, the Mediator. The next several chapters will provide an analysis and exposition of Calvin’s conception of this twofold benefit, and examine in particular the important, albeit much disputed, question of the relation between its aspects: justification and sanctification. This second and central part of our study will consider the following subjects: 1) Calvin’s understanding of union with, or incorporation into, Christ through the operation of the Spirit and through faith; 2) Calvin’s understanding of justification, the “first” aspect of the “twofold grace of God”; 3) Calvin’s understanding of sanctification or repentance, the “second” aspect of the “twofold grace of God”; and 4) Calvin’s understanding of the relation between these two aspects, justification and sanctification. Since the last subject is especially important and has been the subject of controversy in the secondary literature on Calvin’s theology, it will receive more extended consideration than the others. In this chapter, we begin with the first subject: Calvin’s understanding of the believer’s union with Christ.

6.1 Union with Christ by the Spirit Preparatory to taking up the subject of the “twofold grace of God” in Book III of the Institutes, Calvin opens with an important discussion of our union with Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit and through the gift of faith.1 With this discussion, which forms a kind of prologue to the remainder of the Institutes, Calvin outlines his conception of the “way in which we 1 III.i–ii (OS 4.1–54). For comprehensive treatments of this subject, see W. Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin; W. Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin, 265ff. For a recent study that compares Calvin’s understanding of union with Christ with that of St. Bernard, see Dennis E. Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994). For a treatment of the historical background to Calvin’s understanding of union with Christ, see Garcia, “Life in Christ,” 42–77.

84

Part 2

receive the grace of Christ.”2 All of the topics that he subsequently addresses—such as this reception’s twofold benefit, and the church and sacraments as the “external means or aids” by which we are invited into the society of Christ—are framed within the context of this conception of the Spirit’s “office” and of the gift of faith. Each presupposes our reception of God’s grace, and each expresses a particular facet of the application of redemption in Christ. For Calvin, it is by virtue of the Spirit’s work within us, making us partakers of Christ through faith, that we are justified, sanctified, set at liberty, invited into the fellowship of the church, and enabled to participate in its sacraments. Through the Spirit’s work “in us” (in nobis), we are able to participate in and enjoy the benefits of Christ’s work “for us” (pro nobis). Accordingly, before treating the “twofold grace of God” directly, Calvin’s conception of union with Christ through the Spirit and through faith, which forms its immediate context, must be addressed. Calvin’s prologue on the work of the Spirit bears the revealing heading: “The things spoken concerning Christ profit us by the secret working of the Spirit.”3 As this heading indicates, Calvin, in his treatment of the work of the Spirit, is interested in a specific question: how does God’s redemption in Christ, the Mediator, which he has described in the preceding, become effective here and now within the sphere of human life? His answer is that Christ himself, through the operation and office of his Spirit, claims us for himself by applying to us and making effective in us what he has accomplished on our behalf in his life, death, and resurrection. In his opening remarks, Calvin confirms that this question now claims his interest, and that this is how he conceives of its resolution: We must now examine this question: How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son—not for Christ’s own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us (extra nos), and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us […]. To sum up, the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectively unites us to himself (Huc summa redit, Spiritum sanctum vinculum esse, quo nos sibi efficaciter devincit Christus).4

2 Book III (OS 4.1) bears the title: “De Modo Percipiendae Christi Gratiae […].” 3 III.i (OS 4.1): “Quae de Christo dicta sunt, nobis prodesse, arcana operatione Spiritus.” This chapter was moved to the head of Book III and greatly enlarged in the 1559 edition. Most of the references to our union with Christ, especially those in III.ii, first occur in this edition. Cf. Doumerge, Jean Calvin, 4.241; Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 152–3. 4 III.i.1 (OS 4.1–2). Cf. III.i.3 (OS 4.5): “[…] Christum iacere quodammodo otiosum: quia frigide eum extra nos, ad eoque procul a nobis speculamur.” Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.875): “[…] si nous ne sommes d’une grace speciale appelez pour

Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God”

85

With these remarks, Calvin gives striking expression to the basic thrust of his pneumatology, first, by indicating the relation of the Spirit’s office to that of the Father and the Son, and second, by ascribing to the Spirit the specific work of so uniting us with Christ that all he is and has accomplished for us becomes ours. When Calvin describes the relation of the Spirit’s office to that of the Father and the Son, as he does in this passage, he wants to highlight the fully Trinitarian nature of redemption. However, by expressing himself in the specific manner that he does—stating rhetorically that, so long as Christ remains outside of us, all that he has done remains useless and of no value to us—he leaves himself open to the charge that this implies a purely “objective” understanding of redemption in Christ. Christ’s work remains ineffectual without the introduction of a new train of thought, namely, union with Christ through the work of the Spirit. If this were the case, then as one interpreter of Calvin, G. Hendry, alleges, he would at this point be “introducing an entirely new theme, the union of Christ with believers,” which “is a different union from that which was established between Christ and humanity by the incarnation.”5 This criticism, however, represents a misunderstanding of the rhetorical function of this statement. While it is true that Calvin presumes that his preceding account of redemption in Christ is incomplete, since it does not address the issue of how we become members of Christ and share his benefits, he clearly does not want to be understood as introducing “an entirely new theme” with his treatment of the Spirit. Rather, when Calvin says, “all that he has done remains useless and of no value for us,” he wants to introduce a new perspective upon redemption in Christ, the Mediator. That perspective is not discontinuous with his previous account of redemption in Christ, but enlarges upon that account with respect to how it impinges upon human existence. To suppose that he is now abruptly dismissing his earlier understanding of redemption in Christ in order to take up a new subject, redemption through the work of the Spirit, is to misunderstand Calvin’s conception of the latter as an on-going application of the estre participans du fruit de la mort et passion du Fils de Dieu, elle nous sera inutile. Ce n’est point donc assez que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ ait souffert: mais il faut que le bien qu’il nous a acquis nous soit communiqué, et que nous en soyons mis en possession. Le qui se fait quand nos sommes attirez à luy par foy.” 5 The Gospel of the Incarnation, 69–70. Hendry alleges that this statement betrays Calvin’s preceding treatment of Christ’s union with us in the flesh and involves a movement “away from the classical incarnational conception of the relation of Christ to humanity” on Calvin’s part (71). Van Buren, Christ in Our Place, 97, provides a more adequate account of the relation between this union with Christ and Calvin’s previous account of the person and work of Christ: “Incorporation means the realization of substitution. It focuses attention even more strongly on our total dependence on our Substitute, so that Calvin can say that ‘believers live out of themselves—that is, they live in Christ.’” See Comm. Gal 2:20 (CO 50.199).

86

Part 2

former. This follows from the Trinitarian nature of Calvin’s theology, which was emphasized in our previous discussion of its structure.6 That this is Calvin’s understanding becomes evident from the manner in which he describes the Spirit’s work in relation to that of Christ. This description amounts to the claim that the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, is the one through whom Christ exercises his power and makes himself present to us. In his interpretation of the Spirit’s person and work, Calvin’s whole orientation is Christological.7 The Spirit is the “minister and steward of his [i.e. Christ’s] liberality.”8 Though Christ, owing to his resurrection and ascension, is no longer present with us in a bodily manner, he continues to be ever-present through the Spirit’s work within us.9 Through the Spirit’s presence and work, Christ himself makes us his members and keeps us under himself and enables us to possess him.10 In the overwhelming majority of his references to the Spirit, Calvin invariably associates his office with redemption in Christ, and understands the Spirit’s work to be an application of that redemption.11 Unless this intimate 6 Cf. Comm. Matt 28:19 (CO 45.824): “[…] a gratuita patris misericordia initium fiat, qui nos per filium unigentium sibi reconciliat: deinde in medium prodeat Christus ipse cum mortis suae sacrificio, et tandem accedat etiam spiritus sanctus, per quem nos abluit ac regenerat: denique suorum omnium bonorum consortes facit. Ita videmus nec rite cognosci Deum, nisi distincte fides nostra tres in una essentia personas concipiat […].” One could not ask for a more comprehensive and succinct statement of Calvin’s Trinitarian understanding of redemption. 7 Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes, 126–7, well summarizes this orientation, and rightly notes that this holds true for the exercise of Christ’s mediatorship in creation and redemption: “Nun ist aber doch sehr bedeutsam, dass CALVIN nicht erst von der soteriologisch bestimmten, sondern auch schon von jener Wirksamkeit des Heiligen Geistes in Kosmos und Polis als von einem Wirken des Geistes Christi spricht. Durch das völlige Ernstnehmen des filioque wird nämlich verhindert, dass die durch das Geisteswirken verursachten Wirkungen im Kosmos und namentlich im Raume menschlicher Geistigkeit eine selbständige, in sich sinnvolle Bedeutung gewinnen. CALVIN unterscheidet also hinsichtlich der beiden Wirkweisen nicht zwischen dem Geiste Gottes und dem Geiste Christi, sondern zwischen dem Geist des ewigen Sermo und dem Geist des Mittlers: es gibt zwei unterschiedliche Wirkkräfte (virtutes) des Sohnes Gottes; die eine zeigt sich im Weltenbau und im ordo naturae, die andere in der Erneuerung der gefallenen Natur.” 8 III.i.2 (OS 4.2): “[…] suae liberalitatis minister esset ac dispensator.” 9 E.g., Comm. Eph 4:10 (CO 51.195–6); Comm. Matt 28:20 (CO 45.826); Comm. Acts 1:11 (CO 48.13); Comm. Acts 2:33 (CO 48.46); Serm. 1 Cor 10:15–18 (CO 49.667). 10 III.i.3 (OS 4.5): “Eiusdem Spiritus gratia et virtute efficimur illius membra, ut nos sub se contineat, vicissimque illum possideamus.” Cf. Comm. John 14:16 (CO 47.329); Comm. John 14:18 (CO 47.330). 11 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 149–50, isolates four major places in the Institutes where Calvin discusses the work of the Spirit: first, the testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti in accrediting the authority of Scripture; second, the special illumination of the Spirit which enables the mind to grasp the truths of redemption (II.ii.18–25); third, the work of the Spirit as the author of faith and repentance (III.i-iii); and fourth, the work of the Spirit in effecting the sacraments (IV.xiv.8– 10). Though helpful as a way of designating places where the Spirit’s work is expressly under consideration, the whole of Books III and IV provide a summary of the Spirit’s office, and this redemptive office itself presupposes Calvin’s earlier treatment of the Spirit as the “executor” of the Son’s Lordship over the whole creation.

Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God”

87

relation is rightly emphasized, one must assume an inadequate, because nonTrinitarian, conception of redemption. Redemption is a unified work of the Triune God. Just as all the gifts of the Father repose in Christ, so those who are his members through the operation of the Spirit lack nothing necessary to their salvation. Indeed, Calvin asserts that, if Christ were separated from his Spirit, then he would be “so to say, dead, and empty.”12 For it is the Spirit who enlightens our minds with faith, who seals in our hearts the adoption of God, who regenerates us to newness of life, and who grafts us into the body of Christ so that he lives in us and we in him. The Spirit of grace is therefore rightly so called because through him Christ with all his benefits becomes ours.13

In this and similar passages, Calvin typically ascribes to the Spirit the critical office of engrafting us into Christ (insitio Christi). In this way the Spirit makes effective in us what Christ accomplished for us as our Mediator. Whenever Calvin attempts to articulate the nature of this union with Christ, as it is brought about through the Spirit, he insists upon the most intimate union with Christ, short of confusing Christ’s discrete Person with ours, or of implying an “essential” union between Christ and those who belong to him.14 Since the Spirit is the “bond” (vinculum) of our union with God in Christ,15 and since it is through the Spirit that we are “effectively made one with Christ,”16 our union with Christ does not involve Christ “transfusing 12 Comm. Eph 3:17 (CO 51.186): “Nam quum in Christo pater omnium donorum plenitudinem reposuerit: qui Christum habet in se manentem, ei nihil deest. Falluntur ergo, qui aliter spiritum Dei se posse adipisci sperant, quam dum adepti sunt Christum. Quemadmodum rursus stulta est ac praepostera eorum imaginatio, qui Christum percipi a nobis posse somniant absque spiritu. Atqui utrumque tenendum est, eatenus nos fieri spiritus sancti participes, quatenus Christo communicamus: quia non alibi invenietur spiritus quam in Christo, super quem dicitur propterea requievisse: nec Christum a spiritu suo posse divelli, ut sit quasi mortuus et vacuus sua virtute.” 13 Comm. Heb 10:29 (CO 55.136): “[…] qui fide mentes nostras illustrat, qui Dei adoptionem obisgnat cordibus nostris, qui nos regenerat in vitae novitatem, qui nos in Christi corpus inserit ut vivat in nobis, et nos in ipso. Merito itaque spiritus gratiae appellatur, per quem noster fit Christus cum omnibus suis bonis.” 14 On occasion Calvin does use language which might suggest a union of essence or substance, though not an infusion of essence. Cf. Comm. Eph 5:29 (CO 51.225): “[…] substantiae eius communicare, et hac communicatione nos coalescere in unum corpus”; Comm. Gal 2:20 (CO 50.199): “[…] veram cum ipso et substantiatem communicationem habeant”; Comm. Rom 6:5 (CO 49.106): “[…] sed arcanam coniunctionem, per quam cum ipso coaluimus, ita ut nos spiritu suo vegetans eius virtutem in nos transfundat.” Wendel, Calvin, 235ff, notes these passages, but rightly concludes (135): “There is no question, when Calvin is speaking about union or communion with Christ, of any absorption into Christ, or any mystical identification that would diminish human personality in the slightest degree, or draw Christ down to us.” Though Calvin uses the express language of a unio mystica, union with Christ never takes place outside the context of the response of faith. 15 III.i.1 (OS 4.2). Cf. Comm. Col 1:20 (CO 52.88): “[…] per solum Christum beatos esse, quia ipse vinculum sit nostrae cum Deo coniunctionis […].” 16 Comm. Matt 1:23 (CO 45.68) “[…] sed unum cum eo efficimur.” Cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.953): “[…] voire et qu’il veut habiter en nous, non

88

Part 2

his substance into us” (non quia suam in nos substantiam transfundat), but involves rather a “spiritual” communication to us of all the blessings Christ has received from the Father.17 Calvin admits that the nature of this union with Christ finally eludes comprehension by the human mind, but he is anxious to avoid an understanding of it in sub-personal categories. Though it forms the closest possible union between Christ and ourselves, it remains a union at the level of a personal relationship, wherein the living Christ through his Spirit makes us partakers of him and all his saving benefits. It is by virtue of this operation of his Spirit that the ascended Christ himself has become a “life-giving Spirit.”18

6.2 Union with Christ by Faith Calvin’s insistence upon the personal and spiritual nature of union with Christ through the power of the Spirit is evident from his conception of the role of faith in effecting this union. In his exposition of faith, it is obvious how far Calvin’s understanding of union with Christ is from the idea of a transfusion of his essence into us. According to Calvin, it is not possible to understand fully our union with Christ unless, in addition to the Spirit’s role in uniting us with him, we also consider the role of faith, the Spirit’s “principal work,” by which we participate in the reception of God’s grace in Christ.19 Redemption (the Trinitarian reality of the Father’s gratuitous mercy, the Son’s reconciling office, and the Spirit’s regenerating power and efficacy) is always a two-sided affair, comprehending both God’s relation to us and our relation to him. When Calvin describes our union with Christ, he does so not only in terms of this “secret working” of the Spirit, but also in terms of its “subjective” counterpart, the response of faith. Union with Christ comes about both through Christ’s active claim upon us through his Spirit, and through our response to that claim. Faith, as the Spirit’s principal point par imagination, mais par effet: non point par une facon terrestre, mais spirituelle: et quoy qu’il en soit, qu’il besongne tellement par la vertu de son sainct Esprit que nous sommes unis à luy plus que ne sont les membres d’un corps.” 17 Comm. John 17:21 (CO 47.387). Cf. III.xi.5 (OS 4.186). This union is “spiritual” in the strict sense that it is effected, not immediately, but through the operation of the Spirit. 18 III.i.2 (OS 4.3). In this connection, Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft, 72–3, quite properly warns against confusing Calvin’s understanding of this union with philosophical categories of causality and substance: “Vielmehr ist bei ihm alles gedacht in lebendiger persönlicher Aktion und Reaktion. Die Christusgemeinschaft begründet keinen sich zwangsläufig vollziehenden Ablauf von Ereignissen, sondern ein ununterbrochenes Geben und Nehmen, ein lebendiges Fragen und Antworten. Der in Christus Eingepflanzte wird nicht nur geleitet, beeinflusst, mit dem Leben des Hauptes erfüllt; er ist auch selbst gefordert, als Streiter, als Bekenner, als Arbeiter auf den Plan gestellt, nur dass der also selbst Geforderte nie auftritt ohne die Verbindung mit Christus.” 19 III.i.4 (OS 4.5): “Verum quia fides praecipuum est eius opus […].”

Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God”

89

work in us, is the instrument by which we receive the grace of God in Christ with all its benefits. “Christ himself with all his blessings, is communicated to us by the Spirit. For we receive Christ by faith, and it is by faith that his benefits are applied to us. The author of faith is the Spirit.”20 A complete account of Calvin’s conception of our union with Christ must include a consideration of his understanding of faith and its role in this union. Since Calvin’s discussion of the “twofold grace of God” includes a further exposition of his view of the role of faith, we need only consider some of its more important elements at this point. Perhaps the most useful guide in this connection is the summary definition of faith that Calvin provides in his Institutes: Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it 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.21

With this definition as our point of orientation, we may identify three important elements of his conception: Calvin’s emphasis that faith is a form of knowledge; his specific description of the “object” of that knowledge; and his understanding of the Spirit’s office as the author of faith. 1. The first element of Calvin’s conception of faith is his emphasis upon understanding it as a kind of knowledge (cognitio). To understand why Calvin places so much importance upon the knowledge element of faith, it is important to note that this is intended as part of his polemic with medieval Scholastic theology. In particular, he defines faith as knowledge in order to repudiate the Scholastic notion of “implicit faith” (fides implicita), which consists merely in submitting to the teachings of the church and taking on its authority what one does not actually know.22 On the contrary, for Calvin, “[f]aith rests not on ignorance, but on knowledge”;23 it includes an “explicit recognition of the divine goodness.”24 Though Calvin admits that the knowledge of faith is circumscribed within certain limits and 20 Comm. 1 Cor 6:11 (CO 49.395): “[…] Christus ipse cum omnibus suis bonis per spiritum nobis communicatur. Fide enim recipimus Christum, et eius gratiae nobis applicantur. Fidei autor spiritus.” 21 III.ii.7 (OS 4.16): “[…] dicamus esse divinae erga nos benevolentiae firmam certamque cognitionem, quae gratuitae in Christo promissionis veritate fundata, per Spiritum sanctum et revelatur mentibus nostris et cordibus obsignatur.” Cf. the definition given in the Catechismus Ecclesiae Genevensis, 1545 (OS 2.92): “[…] dicamus certam esse ac stabilem cognitionem paternae erga nos Dei benefolentiae: sicut per Evangelium patrem se nobis, Christi beneficio, ac salvatorem fore testatur.” 22 See, e.g., III.ii.2 (OS 4.10); Comm. Titus 1:1 (CO 52.404); Comm. Col 1:23 (CO 52.91). 23 III.ii.2 (OS 4.10): “Non in ignoratione, sed in cognitione sita est fides.” Cf. Serm. Gal 3: 3–5 (CO 50.482): “Nulle foy sans instruction de l’Evangile […].” 24 III.ii.2 (OS 4.11): “[…] explicitam […] divinae bonitatis agnitionem.”

90

Part 2

acknowledges that “sometimes the mind’s preparation for teaching is termed ‘faith,’”25 ordinarily faith consists in a recognition of God’s benevolence and being-toward-us in Christ. Lest this first element of Calvin’s conception of faith—his emphasis upon faith as knowledge—be misconstrued as representing an intellectualistic distortion, Calvin carefully distinguishes the knowledge of faith from other forms of knowledge and defines its peculiar characteristics. The knowledge of faith is sui generis. It differs substantially from “rational proof” or from “comprehension of the sort that is commonly concerned with those things which fall under human sense perception.”26 It is distinguished by its character as a “persuasion of divine truth,” being more a matter of “assurance” than of “comprehension.”27 What sets the knowledge of faith apart is its certitudinal quality, since it is always accompanied by “confidence” (fiducia) and even “boldness” (audacia) before God.28 Though the life of faith is never immune from conflict with doubt, this conflict never results in a departure “from the certain assurance received from God’s mercy.”29 For faith is that unique knowledge, distinct from other forms of comprehension or ignorance, that firmly rests upon God’s benevolence toward us in Christ. 2. The character of faith as a firm and certain knowledge derives from the nature of its object. According to Calvin, faith has for its peculiar object “God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ.” Faith is, for this reason, a knowledge which is always 25 See, e.g., III.ii.3 (OS 4.11); III.ii.4 (OS 4.11–2); Comm. John 7:31 (CO 47.177); Comm. John 8:30 (CO 47.201–2); Comm. Acts 17:4 (CO 48.396); Comm. Matt 15:22 (CO 45.456–7). In these passages, as well as many others, Calvin admits that there is a kind of willingness to be taught which may, improperly, be termed “faith,” since it is often a preparation for genuine faith. 26 III.ii.14 (OS 4.24): “Cognitionem dum vocamus, non intelligimus comprehensionem, qualis esse solet earum rerum quae sub humanun, sensum cadunt.” Cf. III.ii.41 (OS 4.51). 27 III.ii.14 (OS 4.25): “[…] sed divinae veritatis persuasione confirmati magis quam rationali demonstratione edocti […]. Unde statuimus, fidei notitiam certitudine magis quam apprehensione contineri.” Cf. Serm. de la Iustification (CO 23.683). Commenting on Abraham’s faith, Calvin notes that he was “resolu et persuadé de la faveur paternelle de Dieu.” On the theme of faith as “persuasion,” see Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 429–31. 28 III.ii.15 (OS 4.25–6). Cf. Serm. Deut 26:16–19 (CO 28.289–90): “Par la foy que nous avons en Iesus Christ, la confiance nous est donnee avec audace ou hardiesse de venir à Dieu.” Also cf. III.ii.16 (OS 4.26–7); Comm. Gal 1:9 (CO 50.174); Comm. Rom 10:10 (CO 49.202); Comm. Col 2:2 (CO 52.99). 29 III.ii.17 (OS 4.27). Calvin devotes considerable attention to the life of faith, which is never immune from some degree of anxiety and even doubt. However, he continues to insist that genuine faith is chiefly characterized by its assurance of God’s favor and mercy. On this curious, even paradoxical, insistence upon the certainty of faith and its actual battle with doubt, see Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 192ff; Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 234ff. In a subsequent chapter, when the issue of the so-called syllogismus practicus is considered, the significance of Calvin’s emphasis upon faith’s certainty will be noted further.

Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God”

91

directed beyond and oriented to an object outside itself.30 In his treatment of the object of faith in the Institutes, Calvin carefully proceeds from the general to the particular in order to determine specifically what is the “object” (obiectus) or “scope of faith” (scopus fidei).31 The knowledge of faith, characterized as it is by a firm confidence in God’s benevolence, does not have for its object a “common assent to the gospel history,”32 or even “God himself.”33 For the knowledge of faith is “not merely a question of knowing that God exists, but also—and this especially—of knowing what is his will toward us.”34 In his designation of faith’s scopus, Calvin is not content with the mere recognition of the gospel history or with an indefinite awareness that God exists. Rather, consistent with his understanding of the knowledge of God generally, he directs his attention to the revelation and Word of God as it attests what he desires to be toward us, and fundamentally to Christ himself, who is the intermediary through whom the benevolence and free promise of God are exhibited to us.35 Since the knowledge of faith is directed to God’s will and relation toward us, Christ—the Word and Wisdom of God, the sole Mediator of redemption, the pledge of the Father’s gratuitous mercy and favor—is the specific obiectum or scopum fidei.36 And, since faith focuses its attention upon him, it can only be persuaded of the Father’s goodness. For when faith 30 Cf., e.g., Serm. Gen 15:6–7 (CO 23.737): “Voila donc la nature de la foy, que nous ayons les yeux clos […] il faut bien que nous ayons les oreilles ouvertes et attentives pour recevoir ce que Dieu nous dira.” Peter Brunner, in his Vom Glauben bei Calvin, 85, speaks in this connection of the “Sachbezogenheit” of faith: “Der Grund dafur, dass aus dem Glauben das Heil kommt, liegt in seiner Sachbezogenheit: er verbindet uns mit Gott, ausser dem es ja kein Heil gibt. Freilich ist eine direkte ungebrochene, unmittelbare Beziehung auf Gott nicht möglich. Christus muss dazwischen treten, wir mussen in Christi Leib eingepflanzt sein.” 31 III.ii.6 (OS 4.14): “[…] gradatim a genere ad speciem descendimus.” This explicit statement of his intention to isolate the specific object of faith should have been sufficient to preclude the common misinterpretation of Calvin’s view: that he views faith as a mere assent to the formal authority of Scripture. Just as faith has a particular object, God’s benevolence and mercy in Christ, so faith, when it attends to Scripture’s teaching, seeks out what it attests concerning Christ. 32 III.ii.1 (OS 4.7): “[…] vulgarem quendam Evangelicae historiae assensum.” 33 III.ii.1 (OS 4.7): “Deum eius obiectum simpliciter […].” 34 III.ii.6 (OS 4.15): “Neque enim unum id in fidei intelligentia agitur, ut Deum esse noverimus, sed etiam, imo hoc praecipue, ut qua sit erga nos voluntate, intelligamis.” 35 See, e.g., III.ii.1 (OS 4.7); Comm. 1 Peter 1:20 (CO 55.226–7); Comm. John 14:1 (CO 47.321–2); Comm. John 6:49 (CO 47.36); Comm. Acts 10:4 (CO 48.226); Comm. Isa 45:24 (CO 37.150). 36 Passages where Calvin identifies Christ as the obiectum or scopum fidei are too numerous to cite in full. Representative passages are III.ii.29 (OS 4.39): “proprium scopum”; Comm. Acts 26:18 (CO 48.543–4): “Fides autem proprie dirigitur in Christum”; Comm. 1 John 5:1 (CO 55.360): “fidei scopum”; Comm. Acts 20:21 (CO 48.463): “fidei scopum”; Comm. 1 Cor 1:30 (CO 49.332): “proprium fidei obiectum sit Christus”; Comm. Heb 11:7 (CO 55.150): “verum fidei scopum”; Comm. Acts 16:31 (CO 48.388–9): “unicum fidei scopum.” Cf. Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik, 227–33.

92

Part 2

is oriented to Christ, in whom is manifest God’s will and purpose toward us, it clings, not so much to his “essence” (essentia), but more especially to “his office and power,” to “what he wishes to be toward us and for what purpose he was sent by the Father.”37 Even though Calvin often identifies the object of faith with the Word of God,38 Christ himself, as the “scopus and sum” (scopus […] summa) of Scripture,39 is the one to whom faith must direct itself when it responds to the Word of God. 3. Finally, Calvin stresses something we noted earlier, that faith, however much a subjective response to the claim of Christ upon us, is the principal work and gift of the Holy Spirit. Though faith is a genuine and proper human appropriation of the gratuitous mercy of God toward us in Christ, it is not a human “work” for which the believer is worthy of praise or to which may be ascribed any merit. This is clear from the concluding portion of his definition of faith, where Calvin indicates that it is only through the Spirit’s work within us, revealing to our minds and sealing upon our hearts the knowledge of God’s benevolence in Christ, that we are able to appropriate this mercy. Only by virtue of the Spirit’s work of “purifying the mind so as to give it a relish for divine truth”40 may the knowledge of faith be described, in distinction from other forms of human cognition, as firm and certain. It is because the knowledge of faith depends upon this inward illumination of the Spirit that its certainty cannot be shaken. Were faith to waver, it would be guilty of gross ingratitude in resisting the Spirit of God.41 When Calvin ascribes to the Spirit the additional work of “sealing upon our hearts” (cordibus obsignans) this knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us in Christ, it becomes even more evident how far his view of the knowledge of faith differs from mere assent (assensus) to divine truth. The Spirit’s work in sealing upon our hearts the knowledge of God’s benevo37 Comm. John 6:49 (CO 47.36): “Et certe fides non in sola Christi essentia (ut ita loquar) haerere debet, sed eius virtutem et officium attendere. Parum enim prodesset scire quisnam sit Christus, nisi hoc secundum accederet, qualis erga nos esse velit, et in quem finem missus fuerit a patre.” Cf. Comm. 1 Peter 1:8 (CO 55.214); Comm. 1 John 5:5 (CO 55.363). 38 In a subsequent chapter, it will be noted that the concrete context for faith is the church where this Word is preached. For this reason faith may be said to be concipitur ex verbi auditu. Cf., e.g., Comm. Acts 16:31 (CO 48.327): “[…] cognitio ex evangelio concepta”; Comm. John 4:22 (CO 47.87): “[…] ex Dei verbo gigni necesse est”; Comm. John 4:42 (CO 47.98): “[…] fides, nempe ex ipso Dei verbo concepta”; Comm. John 11:21 (CO 47.261): “[…] tenendus enim semper est mutuus inter verbum et fidem consensus.” 39 Comm. 2 Tim 3:15 (CO 52.382). Cf. Comm. Acts 20:21 (CO 48.463): “[…] Christum scriptura passim nobis in fidei scopum et, ut vulgo loquuntur, obiectum proponit.” 40 III.ii.33 (OS 4.44). Cf. III.ii.6 (OS 4.13–5); III.ii.19 (OS 4.29–30); III.ii.36 (OS 4.46–7). 41 III.ii.39 (OS 4.48–9). Cf. III.ii.40 (OS 4.50); Comm. Gal 4:6 (CO 50.228); Comm. Eph 3:19 (CO 51.188). Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 422–37, properly argues that Calvin’s emphasis upon the Spirit’s authorship of faith does not mitigate the full engagement of the believer in answering and embracing the promise of the gospel.

Union with Christ and the “Twofold Grace of God”

93

lence in Christ not only presumes that the knowledge of faith is a matter of assurance, but it also reflects Calvin’s conviction that the seat of this knowledge is the human “heart” and that this knowledge transforms the believer’s will.42 Accordingly, though Calvin emphasizes the character of faith as a form of cognition, he is equally emphatic in his rejection of the common Scholastic distinction between “formed” and “unformed” faith (fides formata et informata) since, as he conceives of it, faith remains “more of the heart than of the brain, and more of the disposition than of the understanding.”43 Far from admitting that the knowledge of faith is unfruitful, Calvin affirms that this knowledge, inasmuch as it is sealed upon the heart, is inseparable from the “obedience of faith.” To speak of a faith without the love of God and neighbor is to express a gross misconception and distortion of it.44

6.3 Summary Though more could be said about Calvin’s conception of faith, this suffices to provide an account of Calvin’s understanding of our union with Christ. For Calvin, this union comes about through the corollary modalities of the Spirit’s work within us and the response of faith. The reciprocal relation between these modalities is evident from Calvin’s claim that faith is the Spirit’s principal work, and that faith makes Christ’s work for us effective in the life of believers.45 Just as through the secret working of the Spirit in us, so through faith we are united to Christ and inserted into his body.46 It is the “office” of faith to “translate into us what is proper to Christ,” and to grant us a gratuitous communication of his benefits.47 Just as the Spirit brings about a union between the exalted Christ and the believer, so faith 42 III.ii.8 (OS 4.17–8). 43 III.ii.8 (OS 4.17): “[…] cordis esse magis quam cerebri, et affectus magis quam intelligentiae.” Cf., e.g., III.ii.41–3 (OS 4.50–4); II.viii.53 (OS 3.392); Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.535). 44 See, e.g., III.ii.8–10 (OS 4.16–20); Comm. Dan 6:23 (CO 41.27); Comm. Ps 78:21 (CO 31.729–30); Comm. John 2:23 (CO 47.50); Comm. Gal 3:12 (CO 50.209); Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.35); Comm. Titus 3:8 (CO 52.433). These are but a few instances where Calvin repudiates the idea of an “inactive faith,” that is, one without love, and argues that faith begins with a willingness to obey and that it is the “root” (radix) of obedience. For Calvin it is inconceivable that faith, which acknowledges God to be true and acquiesces in his gracious will, would not necessarily express itself in love. 45 Cf., e.g., Serm. Eph 3:14–19 (CO 51.491): “Iesus Christ habite en nous par foy.[…] Il habite en nous par la vertu de son S. Espirit.” 46 III.iii.30 (OS 4.40): “Quomodo autem fides salvifica nisi quatenus nos in Christi corpus inserit?” 47 Comm. Acts 15:9 (CO 48.346): “Et certe fidei officium est, quod proprium habet Christus in nos transferre, et gratuita communicatione efficere nostrum.”

94

Part 2

conveys to us the heavenly life of Christ and causes him to dwell in us.48 Through the secret working of the Spirit and through faith, the Spirit’s principal work, we are simultaneously claimed by Christ and enabled to respond to and appropriate the benefits of that claim.49 Faith—which consists in an assured knowledge that God is benevolent toward us in Christ, revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts by the Spirit—constitutes our response to the Triune God’s redemption in Christ and enables us to possess him with all his benefits. Through faith believers embrace and appropriate the manifold grace of God in Christ, which shapes the the whole course and nature of their lives.

48 See, e.g., Comm. Gal 2:20 (CO 50.200); Comm. John 15:7 (CO 47.341); Comm. John 8:19 (CO 47.195). 49 In this respect, Calvin understands union with Christ to be the “end” of the gospel, for it brings about a living relation with God in Christ through the operation of the Spirit. It represents the reality of God’s relation to us and our relation to him. Cf. Serm. Titus 1:7–9 (CO 54.442–3): “Car quand sainct Paul veut definir en brief la fin de l’Evangile, et son vray usage, il dit que nous sommes appellez pour comuniquer à nostre Seigneur Iesus, pour estre unis tellement avec luy, que nous y soyons incorporez, et qu’il habite quant et quant en nous, et que nous soyons conioints ensemble d’un lien inseparable.”

7. Justification by Faith: the First Benefit of the “Twofold Grace of God”1

After examining our union with Christ through the work of the Spirit and through faith, Calvin takes up the subject of the “twofold grace of God,” noting that any discussion of faith would be “barren and mutilated and wellnigh useless” unless it included an explanation of its twofold benefit.2 Our union with Christ cannot be properly apprehended, if the effects of this union remain obscure. A satisfactory account of faith, therefore, must consider what benefits we receive when we are engrafted into Christ’s body. Let us sum these up: Christ was given to us by God’s generosity, to be grasped and possessed by us in faith. By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace (duplicem gratiam): namely, that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father, and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s Spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life.3

Throughout all of his writings—in his Institutes, commentaries, and sermons—Calvin consistently refers to this “double grace” or twofold benefit of our reception of the grace of God in Christ as comprising the “sum of the gospel.”4 These two benefits, justification and sanctification (or repentance) are the “two parts” of our redemption, both of which are bestowed upon us by Christ through faith.5 Together they form the two ways in which the 1 I am reversing the order of treatment that Calvin chooses to follow in Book III of the Institutes. When the question of the relation of the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God” is discussed, the significance of this order of treatment will be considered. It will become clear in what follows why justification is the “first” aspect of God’s twofold grace in Christ, and why I have chosen to treat it before regeneration or sanctification. 2 III.iii.1 (OS 4.55). 3 III.xi.1 (OS 4.182): “Summa autem haec fuit, Christum nobis Dei benignitate datum, fide a nobis apprehendi ac possideri, cuius participatione duplicem potissimum gratiam recipiamus: nempe ut eius innocentia Deo reconciliati, pro iudice iam propitium habeamus in caelis Patrem: deinde ut eius Spiritu sanctificati, innocentiam puritatemque vitae meditemur.” Cf. French ed., 1560: “double grace”; III.xi.14 (OS 4.198); III.ii.8 (OS 4.18); Comm. Deut 30:19 (CO 25.56): “duplicem Christi gratiam.” 4 III.iii.1 (OS 4.55): “[…] summa Evangelii.” Cf. Comm. Acts 5:31 (CO 48.111): “[…] totam evangelii summam”; Comm. Acts 2:38 (CO 48.51–2): “Ac duae quidem illae sunt evangelii partes”; and Comm. Ezek 16:61 (CO 40.393): “[…] totam evangelii summam.” 5 E.g., Comm. Matt 1:21 (CO 45.65): “Duae porro sunt liberationis huius partes”; Comm. Matt 3:2 (CO 45.112): “[…] totum evangelium duabus partibus constare, remissione peccatorum,

96

Part 2

“justice of God” is communicated to us,6 and in which we are cleansed by the holiness of Christ and made partakers of it.7 They constitute that “twofold cleansing” (double lavement),8 or “twofold purification” (duplex purgandi),9 which are granted to us by the Spirit of Christ. The “twofold grace of God” answers to the two ways in which Christ lives in us,10 and forms the invariable content of all Christian preaching about redemption in Christ and its application to human existence.11 According to Calvin, justification through faith is the “first” of these benefits or ways in which Christ lives in those who are engrafted into him. Whereas sanctification or repentance is the “second” of these gifts (quae secunda est gratia), justification or reconciliation is “the main hinge on which religion turns” (praecipuus esse sustinendae religionis cardo).12 et poenitentia”; Comm. John 1:17 (CO 47.18–9); Comm. Col 1:22 (CO 52.90); Comm. Ezek 11:19–20 (CO 40.250). 6 Comm. Heb 7:1 (CO 55.82): “[…] sed Dei iustitiam nobis communicat, partim dum efficit ut gratuita reconciliatione iusti censeamur, partim dum nos renovat spiritu suo, ut pie sancteque vivamus.” Cf. Serm. Isa 24:16 (SC 2.364): “[…] il y a double justice de Dieu, qui nous est revellee en 1’Evangile. C’est en premier lieu, quand par le sang de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ nous sommes lavez et nettoiez tellement que Dieu nous recoit et accepte comme justes […]. Et puis il y a une autre justice, quand par la vertu de Sainct Esprit Dieu nous faict la grace que nous desirons de le servir et honorer, en bataillant contre toutes nos meschants concupiscences, ne laschans point la bride à nos apetiz, et n’estans point attachez au monde, mais que nous tendons au ciel; combien qu’il y ait des infirmitez en nous et des vices beaucoup, si est ce que 1’Esprit de Dieu habite en nous.” 7 Comm. John 17:19 (CO 47.385). 8 Serm. Gal 2:17–18 (CO 50.437–8). 9 Comm. Acts 15:9 (CO 48.347): “Duplex autem est purgandi modus, quod Christus peccata nostra, quae semel sanguine suo expiavit, quotidie delendo, puros iustosque, in patris conspectum nos offert ac sistit: deinde, quod carnis cupiditates spiritu suo mortificans nos in sanctitatem reformat.” Cf. Serm. Job 14:1–4 (CO 33.668): “Maintenant nous avons besoin de double purgation: l’une c’est que Dieu nous pardonne nos fautes, voila comme nos macules seront lavees: l’autre c’est que par son S. Esprit il nous renouvelle, qu’il nous purge de toutes nos mauvaises affections et cupiditez. Or a-il fait pour un iour? Il faut qu’il continue tout le temps de nostre vie […].” 10 Comm. Gal 2:20 (CO 50.199): “Porro vivit Christus in nobis dupliciter. Una vita est, quum nos spiritu suo gubernat atque actiones nostras omnes dirigit. Altera quod participatione suae iustitiae nos donat: ut quando in nobis non possumus, in ipso acceptis simus Deo.” 11 The importance for Calvin of this twofold grace is confirmed, when he summarizes the content of all genuine preaching of the gospel as consisting, first, in the “gratuitous promises of God,” and second, in the call to service or obedience. Cf. Serm. 1 Cor 10:15–18 (CO 49.661): “Toutesfois et quantes que nous venons au sermon, on nous traittera des promesses gratuites de Dieu […]. Or nous declare aussi que le service de Dieu […].” 12 III.xi.1 (OS 4.182); French ed., 1560: “[…] c’est le principal article de la religion Chrestienne.” Cf. III.xv.1 (OS 4.239): “Praecipuum autem hunc esse causae cardinem”; Serm. 2 Sam 12:13 (SC 1.332): “[…] c’est le principal poinct de nostre salut”; Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.626): “[…] c’est le principal article de nostre salut”; Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.688): “[…] voici le fondement de la vraye Religion”; Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.694): “[…] la principale clef de tout Evangile.”

Justification by Faith

97

When Calvin treats the subject of the benefits of our reception of God’s grace in Christ, he clearly grants a kind of priority to justification as the “first” aspect of the “twofold grace of God.” The pre-eminence of this benefit is affirmed in various passages in his writings, which speak of justification as the principal aspect of the “twofold grace of God.” For example, Calvin argues that, since the knowledge of our salvation chiefly depends upon a proper conception of this benefit, it may be termed the “leading tenet of the gospel” (praecipuum evangelii caput).13 Or, he argues, whenever we turn our attention to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is justification especially that must capture our attention.14 To deprive God of the glory of his work of justification would be to impugn the redemptive work of Christ and to destroy the gospel itself.15 Reconciliation, or the forgiveness of sins, constitutes the chief end in the preaching of the gospel of Christ,16 since it concerns his chief office.17 The gospel chiefly differs from secular philosophy by placing our salvation in free forgiveness, and in conceiving it to be the source of all God’s blessings to us, including that of sanctification, the second aspect of the “twofold grace of God.”18 Justification may be termed the “first” benefit of our reception of God’s grace in Christ, since it particularly expresses the “true logic of piety” (dialectica pietatis) itself. This then is the true logic of piety, that is, when we are persuaded that God is reconcileable and easily pacified, because he is by nature inclined to mercy, and also, when we thus apply this doctrine to ourselves, or to our particular benefit,—“As God is by nature merciful, I shall therefore know and find him to be so.”19

13 Comm. Luke 1:77 (CO 45.51). Cf. Comm. Matt 1:14 (CO 45.139); Comm. Luke 1:6 (CO 45.10): “foedus […] cuius primum caput est gratuita reconciliato […].” 14 Comm. 1 John 5:11 (CO 55.368). 15 Comm. Gal 1:7 (CO 50.173). Cf. Serm. Jer 15:10–11, 14–15 (SC 6.29): “Car quel est l’office de l’Evangile, sinon que au lieu que Dieu nous povoit pugnir justement pour noz faultes qu’il ne veulle aultre chose sinon de nous recepvoir à mercy. Tellement qu’en somme 1’Evangile est comme ung appoinctement que Dieu veult faire avec les hommes, ne voullant point pugnir leurs faultes, mais les ensepvelir.” Thus, it is the prerogative of God’s mercy that is at stake in justification. 16 Comm. John 20:23 (CO 47.440): “Hic ergo praecipuus est evangelii praedicandi finis, ut Deo reconcilientur homines, quod fit gratuita peccatorum venia.” In this passage and in many others, Calvin identifies justification with gratuita reconciliatio. Cf., e.g., III.xi.21–2 (OS 4.204– 6); III.xvii.8 (OS 4.261). 17 Comm. John 1:29 (CO 47.25): “[…] praecipuum Christi officium.” 18 Comm. John 20:23 (CO 47.440). 19 Comm. Micah 7:19 (CO 43.431–2). Nothing less than God’s nature or character is involved in a proper appreciation of justification. It shows God as, by nature, kind and ready to forgive. Severity is an opus alienum Dei whose duration is short-lived. Cf. Serm. Isa 28:22 (SC 2.562): “[…] or aucuns prennent ceste ‘oeuvre estrange’ comme s’il estoit dit que Dieu ne suyt point son naturel quand il use de severité. Nous savons que de nature il est benin, humain, pitoi-

98

Part 2

7.1 The Nature of Justification The fitting place to begin our analysis of the “twofold grace of God,” then, is with Calvin’s conception of its principal aspect, justification. Fortunately, as is so often the case in his Institutes, Calvin himself provides us with a comprehensive definition of justification, which includes all of its most important components.20 He is said to be justified in God’s sight who is reckoned righteous in God’s judgment (qui iudicio Dei et censetur iustus) and has been accepted on account of his righteousness […]. On the contrary, 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. Therefore, we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.21

Noteworthy about this definition is its emphasis upon the juridical or forensic nature of justification. Calvin conceives justification to be a gracious judgment of God, whereby the believer is accepted into his favor. As a gracious judgment of God, it constitutes a complex transaction, including the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. For Calvin, the simple and undeniable meaning of justification, as a judicial act of God, is “to acquit.”22 This judgment presumes our guilty status before God, a status that merits his condemnation. Justification can only be understood within a legal framework. In his commentary on the epistle to the Romans, Calvin’s whole case depends upon the validity of his argument that Paul’s doctrine of justification requires such a context if it is to be interpreted correctly. In his commentary on Romans 3:9, Calvin remarks: The Greek verb, aitiasthai, which Paul here uses, is properly a forensic (iudiciale) term, and I have preferred to render it “we have brought a charge.” A plaintiff is said to establish a charge in an action which he is prepared to substantiate by other testiable, et mesmes prompt tousjours, a faire mercy, de longue patience.” Also cf. Serm. Job 5:17–18 (CO 33.265): “Car sa nature est de se monstrer benin a toutes ses creatures”; Serm. Deut 5:8–10 (CO 26.268): “Voila donc le vray naturel de Dieu, c’est qu’il ne demande sinon d’attirer les hommes en toute douceur, et d’user envers eux de sa bonté.” 20 Cf. III.xi (OS 4.181), which bears the title: “De iustificatione fidei, ac primo de ipsa nominis et rei definitione.” 21 III.xi.2 (OS 4.182–3): “[…] iustificabitur ille fide, qui operum iustitia exclusus, Christi iustitiam per fidem apprehendit, qua vestitus in Dei conspectu non ut peccator, sed tanquam iustus apparet. Ita nos iustificationem simpliciter interpretamur acceptionem qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro iustis habet. Eamque in peccatorum remissione ac iustitiae Christi imputatione positam esse dicimus.” Cf. III.xvii.8 (OS 4.261); III.xi.4 (OS 4.184–5). 22 III.xi.3 (OS 4.184): “Iustificare ergo nihil aliud est, quam eum qui reus agebatur, tanquam approbata innocentia a reatu absolvere.”

Justification by Faith

99

monies and proofs. The apostle has summoned all mankind to the tribunal of God, in order to include all under the one condemnation.23

And similarly, in his commentary on Romans 8:33, he notes that […] according to Paul, to be justified means simply to be accounted just by having been absolved from the sentence of God (nihil esse aliud iustificari quam Dei sententia absolutos pro iustus haberi). There is no difficulty in proving this in the present passage in which Paul argues from the basis of one proposition in order to nullify its opposite. To absolve and to accuse are opposites (absolvere et in reos recipere, contraria sunt), and therefore God will not admit any accusation against us, because he has absolved us from all blame.24

It is the natural meaning of justification that requires our conceiving of it as a juridical transaction before God’s tribunal (coram Dei tribunalem). In God’s act of free justification, the believer—who is personally guilty and deserving of condemnation—is accounted righteous (iustum censeri) and absolved before the judgment of God (et coram Dei iudicio absolvi).25 Because justification means our acquittal before God’s judgment, Calvin repeatedly takes issue with the more common medieval and Scholastic tendency to identify being justified (iustificari) with “to make just” (iustum facere).26 Our justification does not depend upon the possession of righteousness as an inherent “quality” (qualitas) of our person, for the righteousness that justifies us is a “relative righteousness” (relationis iustitia).27 Nor does it depend upon “an infused habit or quality” (non […] habitum aut qualitatem in nos transfundat),28 such that God’s judgment and acceptance of us rests upon what “men are in themselves.”29 Since only Christ’s obedi23 Comm. Rom 3:9 (CO 49.52). Cf. Comm. Rom 3:19 (CO 49.55). 24 Comm. Rom 8:33 (CO 49.164). Cf. Comm. Matt 12:37 (CO 45.345): “[…] iustum censeri et coram Dei iudicio absolvi.” 25 Comm. Matt 12:37 (CO 45.345). 26 E.g., Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.706): “Or nous avons à retenir ce qui fut hier traitté, c’est assavoir; que le mot de Iustifier n’emporté pas que nous soyons faits iustes, c’est à dire, que Dieu nous renouvelle tellement que nous soyons des Anges: mais il emporte qu’il nous accepte et approuve par sa pure bonté, encores que nous soyons povres pecheurs.” Cf. Acta Synodi Tridentinae Cum Antidoto, 1547 (CO 7.447): “Quaestio est verbi, quid sit iustificatio. Negant [i.e., the Catholic authors of Trent’s declaration concerning justification] solam esse remissionem peccatorum: sed renovationem et santificationem simul contineri volunt.” 27 Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.534–5). Cf. III.xi.3 (OS 4.183): “[…] nempe relative, non autem ut qualitatem aliquam denotet.” 28 Comm. Gal 3:6 (CO 50.205). Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.692): “Ce n’est point donc une qualité qu’il nous faille cercher aux hommes que ceste justice dont parle ici Moyse: mais c’est la faveur que Dieu nous porte, quand il luy plait d’ensevelir nos pechez et n’y avoir point d’esgard […].” 29 Comm. Rom 4:3 (CO 49.70): “Unde colligimus, non disputari quales sint in se homines, sed quo loco Deus ipsos censeat […].” Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.710): “[…] la iustice dont Moyse parle ici, n’est pas une chose qui reside en nos personnes, mais la remission gratuite

100

Part 2

ence suffices for perfect righteousness before God, and since only in him do we find righteousness inhering as a quality of his person,30 the believer’s justification rests upon Christ’s work alone, and may not be understood to depend causally upon his character (habitus) or upon an “infused righteousness” (iustitia infusa).31 According to Calvin, every effort—such as that of medieval and Scholastic theology—to assert that God’s acceptance of us is based upon our character or an inherent quality, contradicts its gratuitous basis in the mercy of God, and represents a conceptually confused view of justification. Justification concerns our status, or relative position, before God’s tribunal. It refers to God’s act of acquittal of those who are worthy of condemnation. Furthermore, in his articulation of the nature of this gracious judgment of God, Calvin ordinarily conceives it to comprise two interrelated elements: the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.32 Both of these elements need to be considered if a complete account of Calvin’s understanding of justification is to be achieved. Each of them further confirms that justification, as a judicial act, relates to our status before God’s tribunal and must not be confused with the infusion of a new quality. Although Calvin sometimes refers misleadingly to the first of these moments, the forgiveness of sins, as synonymous with justification,33 generally and more properly he understands it as comprising both a negative element and a positive elemnent: the non-imputation of unrighteousness and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.34 de Dieu, quand il nous est propice et favorable, et qu’il nous aime, combien que nous n’en soyons pas dignes.” 30 Comm. Rom 5:19 (CO 49.101): “Deinde quum pronuntiat, nos Christi obedientia constitui iustos: hinc colligimus, Christum, eo quod patri satisfecerit, iustitiam nobis comparasse. Unde sequitur, iustitiae qualitatem esse in Christo: sed nobis acceptum ferri quod illi proprium est.” 31 Comm. Acts 13:39 (CO 48.306). Cf. Comm. Luke 18:14 (CO 45.421); Comm. 2 Cor 5:21 (CO 50.74). 32 See, e.g., III.xi.2 (OS 4.182–3); III.xvii.8 (OS 4.261); III.xi.4 (OS 4.184–5); Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.692); Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.706). 33 E.g., III.xi.21 (OS 4.204): “[…] iustitiam fidei esse reconciliationem cum Deo, quae sola peccatorum remissione constet”; III.xi.3 (OS 4.184). Willy Lüttge, Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins, tries to argue that the forgiveness of sins exhausts Calvin’s positive and normative understanding of justification; the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a secondary and dispensable aspect of his position. We shall treat this argument in connection with the question of the compatibility of Calvin’s juridical understanding of justification and his view of a “mystical” and regenerative union with Christ. To anticipate that treatment, it seems clear that Calvin does not identify justification simply with the forgiveness of sins. The importance of the aspect of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is evident from Calvin’s occasional identification of justification with this aspect alone. See, e.g., Comm. Rom 4:3 (CO 49.70). 34 See, e.g., III.xi.11 (OS 4.192–5); Comm. Rom 4:6 (CO 49.71); Comm. Rom 4:25 (CO 49.87); Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.706); Acta Synodi Tridentinae Cum Antidoto, 1547 (CO 7.442–3); Responsio ad Sadoleti epistolam (OS 1.469–70); Instruction Et Confession De Foy, 1537 (OS 1.393).

Justification by Faith

101

Both of these, the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, serve not only to confirm the juridical nature of justification, but also to highlight its basis in the gratuitous mercy of God, who makes provision for our need through redemption in Christ. When speaking of the forgiveness of sins, Calvin insists that it is incompatible with the notion that God accepts us in virtue of our infused righteousness. This is the righteousness of faith when God regards us as righteous, by not imputing our sins. The proper meaning of this word [iustificari] alone suffices to refute the cavils of the Papists who contend that we are righteous, not by forgiveness and gracious acceptance, but by character and infused righteousness.35

Since we are unrighteous and deserving of condemnation, the precondition for our union with God through Christ is this “act of his liberality whereby he overlooks our sins and does not impute them to us.”36 Likewise, when treating the second, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, Calvin speaks of our obtaining a righteousness which is “beyond ourselves” (extra nos esse),37 an “imputative righteousness (iustitia imputativa) or “relative righteousness” (relationis iustitia)38 on the basis of which we are justified and accepted into God’s favor. This righteousness remains the exclusive property of Christ’s person who, through his whole life of obedience and especially through his atoning death, enables us to be accepted by God when we are clothed with his righteousness.39 Therefore, Calvin notes that “when the reason for God’s love to us and his acknowledgment of us as just is questioned, it is necessary that Christ should be seen to be the one who clothes us with his own righteousness.”40 God justifies us when he, as an act of his liberality, overlooks our sin, and when he accepts us in Christ, recognizing our true status in terms of his redemptive work as our Mediator.

35 Comm. Acts 13:39 (CO 48.306). Cf. Comm. Luke 18:14 (CO 45.421); Comm. Eph 1:7 (CO 51.149–50). 36 Comm. Rom 3:25 (CO 49.63). Cf. Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.534–5). 37 Comm. Rom 3:25 (CO 49.63). 38 Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.534–5). 39 Though Calvin does not distinguish, as later Reformed orthodox theology did, between Christ’s “active” and “passive” obedience, it seems evident that he views the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to believers for justification to include the whole sum of Christ’s obedience. Christ not only obeyed the law perfectly, but he also suffered its penalty in his sacrificial death. The whole Christ, and the whole of Christ’s righteousness, becomes the believer’s through faithunion with him. It is this imputed righteousness that is the just basis for the believer’s justification before God. 40 Comm. Rom 4:3 (CO 49.70): “[…] sed quia ubi causa quaeritur cur nos Deus amet ac pro iustis agnoscat, Christum prodire necesse est, qui sua nos iustitia induat.”

102

Part 2

7.2 By Faith Alone (sola fide) Consistent with this judicial conception of justification, Calvin never tires in his insistence that, given the nature of the gracious judgment of God, there is a profound and insuperable antithesis between justification by works and justification by faith. If justification means God’s gracious acceptance of guilty persons, a judgment which includes both his free decision to overlook their sins and receive them into his favor clothed with the righteousness of Christ, then it cannot depend upon the righteousness of works, but must be received and acknowledged through faith alone. If we are to have an adequate understanding of Calvin’s view of justification as the first benefit of the “twofold grace of God,” the nature of this antithesis and the role of faith in our justification require comment. When Calvin denies that justification depends upon the infusion of a new character (“being made just”), he presupposes this antithesis and incompatibility between justification by works and justification by faith. Faith righteousness and works righteousness wholly exclude one another: “faith righteousness so differs from works righteousness that when one is established the other has to be overthrown.”41 According to Calvin, there are at least two important considerations that require our positing this antithesis: first, even if we were to grant, hypothetically, that we could be justified by works, this is not possible in reality; and second, the very notion of justification by works is repugnant, as it contravenes a fundamental article of the Christian faith. In respect to the first consideration, Calvin concedes that “doers of the law” are justified, and that those who perfectly fulfill God’s will in every respect are acceptable to him. He emphatically denies, however, that any such persons can be found, for all are in some respect destitute of that perfect fulfillment of God’s will that is acceptable to him.42 The supposition that one could be justified by works is contrary to fact. It supposes the im41 III.xi.15 (OS 4.199). Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.703): “Or maintenant nous voyons que ce sont deux choses contraires comme le feu et l’eau, que nous soyons estimez iustes devant Dieu par nos oeuvres, et que nous soyons acceptez de luy en vertu de la foy.” 42 Calvin never fails to insist that it is in this sense that faith is opposed to works: none is able to or ever succeeds in fulfilling what the law requires, since it demands of us a perfect righteousness of heart and works. Furthermore, not only are all guilty of breaking the law, but also those who keep it, to whatever extent, merit nothing and remain but those who have done what would be expected of unprofitable servants. Calvin rejects outright the notion of true merit as incompatible with a proper conception of our relation to God, even though he allows that lawkeeping could be construed as a kind of hypothetical condition which, if met, would eliminate the need for the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. See, e.g., Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.718); Serm. sur la prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.669); III.xi.15 (OS 4.199); III.xvii.13 (OS 4.266–7).

Justification by Faith

103

possible, namely, that one has or could achieve a righteousness so perfect in every respect that it could stand in the presence of God’s judgment.43 For Calvin, such a supposition, because it is contrary to fact, is nothing more than a form of gross self-deception as to the gravity of God’s judgment against sin.44 Since no partial righteousness, which is the most that anyone might achieve, could sustain itself before the requirements of God’s own righteousness and holiness, it is axiomatic for Calvin that justification in no wise depends upon works of righteousness or works done according to the law of God. This consideration, however, is to put the antithesis negatively. For Calvin, the more important consideration is that justification by works cannot be squared with the nature of the gospel itself. For if works of the law are granted a role, however partial, in justification, then one must also repudiate the free grace of God in Christ, thereby betraying a fundamental article of the Christian faith by introducing the thought of merit in interpreting our reception of salvation.45 Faith alone justifies us, not works of righteousness, because it is a peculiar property of faith to acknowledge that this grace is free and that our redemption is a gift. To fully appreciate Calvin’s understanding of this antithesis, it is important that this role and property of faith be considered. Faith justifies us, according to Calvin, not because it is an alternative and superior human “work” to the works of the law, but because it is exclusively oriented to God’s benevolence and mercy in Christ. Faith ascribes the whole reason for our salvation to Christ alone and retains nothing for itself; it recognizes no other righteousness than that which is in Christ, and understands it to be constitutive of our justification before God.46 Since we shall never be clothed with this righteousness of Christ unless we first forswear any claim to a righteousness of our own,47 faith alone, as it looks only to God’s redemption in Christ and claims nothing for 43 III.xii.1 (OS 4.208). In this whole discussion, Calvin insists, we need to remember that “non de humani fori iustitia sed caelestis tribunalis, sermonem esse institutum: ne ad modulum nostrum metiamur, qua operum integritate divino iudicio satisfiat.” 44 III.xii.4 (OS 4.211–2): “Qui autem serio, tanquam sub Dei conspectu, de vera iustitiae regula quaerent, illi certo comperient, omnia hominum opera, si sua dignitate censeantur, nihil nisi inquinamenta esse et sordes: et quae iustitia vulgo habetur, eam apud Deum meram esse iniquitatem: quae integritas censetur, pollutionem: quae gloria ducitur, ignominiam.” 45 Comm. Gal 2:21 (CO 50.201): “Adversus eos sic argumentatur, frustra mortuum esse Christum, si per legem est iustitia. Sic agendo, nullam certe iustitiae guttam operibus relinquit. Ab illis nihil different papistae. Liceat igitur et nobis ad eos refutandos Pauli argumentum usurpare.” Cf. Comm. Gal Argumentum (CO 50.161–5). 46 Comm. Gal 5:2 (CO 50.244): “Et quid aliud hodie faciunt papistae, nisi quod pro circumcisione nugas a se inventas obtrudunt? Huc certe tendit tota eorum doctrina, ut Christi gratia operum meritis permisceatur: quod impossibile est. Christum enim dimidium quisquis habere vult, totum perdit.” 47 Comm. Rom 8:3 (CO 49.139).

104

Part 2

itself, is the exclusive means by which we may appropriate that gracious judgment of God which is our justification.48 For this reason, Calvin suggests, the antithesis between justification by works and justification by faith may be variously expressed. It is an antithesis between works and faith, which finds the basis for salvation only in the free mercy, love and grace of God, and in the righteousness of Christ.49 When elaborating upon this relation between faith and the grace of God in Christ in justification, Calvin often chooses to speak of faith as its “formal or instrumental cause” (causa formalis vel instrumentalis).50 That he should use this terminology at all is somewhat surprising in view of his strong reaction to the Council of Trent’s appropriation of the Aristotelian and Scholastic causal scheme in its exposition of justification. Nevertheless, in his clarification of the sense in which faith may be termed a “cause” of our justification, Calvin indicates how he understands this terminology and provides an interesting account of his conception of the role of faith. In his commentary on Acts 15:9, he notes that 48 Comm. Gal 3:6 (CO 50.205–6). Cf. Comm. Rom Argumentum (CO 49.1): “Sit ergo nobis istorum capitum proposita thesis, unicam esse hominibus iustitiam, Dei misericordiam in Christo: dum, per evangelium oblata, fide apprehenditur.” Also cf. Comm. Rom 1:17 (CO 49.21–2): “[…] sola Dei misericordia, per fidem nos iustificari […].” 49 Comm. Gal 3:6 (CO 50.205): “Proinde omnes istae loquutiones peraque valent, iustificari nos Dei gratia, Christum esse iustitiam nostram, Dei misericordiam causam esse nostrae iustitiae, iustitiam morte et resurrectione Christi nobis acquisitam, nobis iustitiam conferri per evangelium, nos fide consequi iustitiam.” Calvin also simply equates justification with God’s love in not sparing his only Son. Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.722–3): “Et ce iustifier-la, c’est ce qui est dit au troisieme chapitre de sainct Iehan, que Dieu a tant aimé le monde, qu’il n’a point espargné son Fils unique, à fin que quiconque croira en luy, ne perisse point, mais qu’il passe de la mort à la vie.” 50 III.xiv.17 (OS 4. 235). In this passage, as well as in many others, Calvin speaks of several “causes” of our justification. The “efficient cause” is the mercy of the Father and his freely given love toward us; the “material cause” is Christ himself, his obedience and atoning death; the “formal or instrumental” cause is variously described, but faith is most often cited; and the “final cause” is God’s glory or the praise of his justice and goodness. See, e.g., Comm. Acts 22:16 (CO 48.496); Comm. Rom 3:22 (CO 49.60); Comm. Rom 3:24 (CO 49.61–2); Comm. Eph 1:5 (CO 51.148); Comm. Eph 1:8 (CO 51.150); Comm. Gen 15:6 (CO 23.213); Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.723–4). In some of the passages, e.g. Acts 22:16 and Eph 1:8, Calvin refers to preaching and the sacraments (the “means” used by the Spirit within the Church) as the “instrumental cause,” since faith is “born of the Word” and strengthened through the sacraments. I have not and will not make much use of this causal scheme in treating Calvin’s understanding of justification, since it is easily subject to misinterpretation and is declared by Calvin himself to be “frivolous and nugatory,” at least as it was appropriated and interpreted by the Council of Trent. Cf. Acta Synodi Tridentinae Cum Antidoto, 1547 (CO 7.449): “Porro, quam frivola sit et nugatoria causarum partitio, quae ab illis commemoratur, supersedeo dicere: nisi quod taceri hoc nec debet, nec potest, nimis esse absurdum, quod causa instrumentalis nominatur solus baptismus.” Louis Goumaz, in his La Doctrine du salut ‘doctrina salutis’ d’apres les commentaires de Jean Calvin sur le Nouveau Testament (Lausanne: Libraire Payot, 1917), uses this scheme to organize his discussion. See Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 399–416, for a treatment of the similarity and dissimilarity between Calvin’s use of the scheme of “causes” and medieval Catholic tradition.

Justification by Faith

105

it is certainly the function of faith to transfer to us what belongs to Christ, and to make it ours by imparting it freely; thus there is a mutual relation between faith and the grace of Christ (Ita inter fidem et Christi gratiam mutua est relatio); for faith does not cleanse us as a virtue or quality poured into our souls, but because it receives the cleanness offered by Christ.51

Faith functions in justification as the instrument through which the believer receives the grace of Christ, and it may be compared, accordingly, with an “empty vessel,”52 or described as a “passive thing” (res passiva),53 since it contributes nothing of its own and ascribes to God’s grace the whole honor in salvation. In his description of the faith of Abraham, Calvin presents a characteristic account of the role of faith in its relation to the promise and grace of God. God bestowed his grace to make Abraham more certain both of his adoption and his fatherly favor, in which is included eternal salvation by Christ. For this reason, Abraham in believing, embraces nothing but the grace offered to him, lest it should be of no effect. If this is imputed to him for righteousness, it follows that the only ground of his righteousness was his trust in the goodness of God, and his claiming to hope for all things from him.54

Though Calvin is careful to qualify what is meant when justification is described in terms of the formula sola fide, since it is easily open to misunderstanding, this passage indicates that he understands it to be the exclusive property of faith to acknowledge the free grace of God in Christ, as the only basis upon which we can stand before God.55 One prominent feature of faith, and one which is implicit in this antithesis between faith and works, is its humility. Faith contrasts with the righteousness of works and plays such an instrumental function in our justification precisely because it humbly ascribes the whole substance of salvation

51 (CO 48.346–7). Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.724): “La foy donc iustifie, non pas en apportant aucune dignité ni merite à Dieu, mais d’autant que Dieu reçoit de Iesus Christ ce qui luy est presenté en nostre nom.” 52 III.xi.7 (OS 4.188): “[…] fidem vero quasi vasi conferimus, quia nisi exinaniti ad expetendam Christi gratiam aperto animae ore accedimus, non sumus Christi capaces.” 53 III.xiii.5 (OS 4.220): “Nam quoad iustificationem res est mere passiva fides, nihil afferens nostrum ad conciliandam Dei gratiam, sed a Christo recipiens quod nobis deest.” 54 Comm. Rom 4:3 (CO 49.69–70). Cf. Comm. Gal 3:6 (CO 50.205); Comm. Gen 15:6 (CO 23.211). 55 Comm. Gal 2:16 (CO 50.196): “[…] hic propositionem esse exclusivam, nos non aliter iustificari quam fide: aut, non nisi fide iustificari: cui ista aequipollet, nos sola fide iustificari.” Cf. Comm. Gen 15:6 (CO 23.211). It will become more clear, when the question of the relation between justification and sanctification is discussed in a subsequent chapter, why Calvin is so careful in his discussion of this exclusive property of faith.

106

Part 2

to God’s grace in Christ alone.56 Without this humility of faith, it is not possible to enjoy Christ;57 it would be incongruous for us to embrace him without recognizing and conforming ourselves to his exemplary humility in “abasing himself from the highest pinnacle of glory to the lowest ignominy!”58 According to Calvin, only “those who have learned humility in the school of the cross” can expect to partake of that blessedness which Christ freely gives to those who trust in him.59 Only through the humility which characterizes true faith, a humility which consists in the acknowledgement of our need and in yielding to God’s mercy, can we find salvation and rest in God. Faith justifies us because it refuses to assert its own right or cause before and apart from God’s grace, claiming thereby a position of relative independence and self-sufficiency in his presence; it justifies us precisely because it eschews every form of self-justification before God.60 For faith alone knows that “our humility is God’s loftiness,” and that the acknowledgment of our need “has a ready remedy in his mercy.”61

7.3 Two Things to be Noted Calvin’s treatment of justification is pervaded by his polemic against the medieval Roman Catholic and Scholastic doctrine.62 His forensic conception of justification, his concomitant repudiation of the notion that justification depends upon an infused character or inherent righteousness, his statement of the antithesis between justification by works and justification by faith—each of these elements reflects the extent to which his position differs from the prevailing medieval conception. While it would take us too far afield of our purpose to consider this prevailing conception with all of its 56 See, e.g., Comm. Isa 43:10 (CO 37.88); Comm. Gen 41:15 (CO 23.521); Comm. Dan 4:37 (CO 40.690); Comm. Phil 2:13 (CO 52.31); Comm. Phil 3:15 (CO 52.53); Comm. Gal 6:3 (CO 50.259). 57 See, e.g., Comm. Luke 4:18 (CO 45.142); Comm. Matt 5:2 (CO 45.161–2). 58 Comm. Phil 2:6 (CO 52.25): “Quam igitur absurdum est, quum filius Dei ex tanta altitudine descenderit, nos, qui nihil sumus, efferri superbia?” Cf. Serm sur la Prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.619). 59 Comm. Matt 5:2 (CO 45.161–2): “[…] beatitudinem ad eos solos restringit, qui sub crucis disciplina humiles esse didicerint.” 60 Comm. 1 Cor 4:7 (CO 49.367). 61 II.ii.11 (OS 3.254): “Ne hic ergo de iure nostro cum Deo contendamus, acsi saluti nostrae decederet quod illi tribuitur. Siquidem ut nostra humilitas, eius est altitudo: ita confessio nostrae humlitatis, miserationem eius in remedium paratam habet.” Cf. Comm. 2 Cor 1:9 (CO 50.14). 62 T. Stadtland, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung bei Calvin, 74ff passim, does treat this polemic in some detail, as well as the question of the sources of Calvin’s position. Unfortunately, his treatment is often too schematic and perfunctory to be helpful. Furthermore, in looking for sources for Calvin’s position, he on occasion misinterprets Calvin’s position.

Justification by Faith

107

variations, there are two points in particular that Calvin stresses in his polemic against it that are worthy of special notice. These are: God’s honor, and peace of conscience.63 For Calvin, both of these are preserved in his conception of justification, and are threatened by the conception of those who understand justification to depend upon the righteousness of works or upon an infused character. In his discussion of God’s honor, Calvin calls attention to the necessary incompatibility between God’s free justification of his people in Christ and any glorying in self-righteousness.64 When, in its articulation of the doctrine of justification, Scholastic theology refers to free will,65 the merit of works,66 works of supererogation,67 cooperating grace,68 preparations for grace,69 subsequent grace,70 and the like, it strips Christ of his exclusive office as Redeemer and opens the way to boasting before God. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all praise, it follows that salvation is not of us. Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and invented preparations, and merits, and satisfactions?71

The implication of these concepts, each of which attributes to us a contributing role in obtaining salvation, is the curtailment of Christ’s might and honor.72 They serve only to weaken Christ’s power by obscuring and per63 Cf. III.xiii (OS 4.215–20), which bears the title: “Duo esse in gratuita iustificatione observanda.” It is noteworthy that a recent study of Calvin’s theology takes the theme of God’s glory as a central motif in Calvin’s thought. See Marijn de Kroon, The Honour of God and Human Salvation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001). 64 III.xiii.2 (OS 4.216): “[…] nunquam in ipso vere gloriamur, nisi nostra gloria penitus abdicati. Contra hoc habendum est catholicum theorema, adversus Deum gloriari quicunque in se gloriantur.” 65 E.g., Comm. Rom 6:18 (CO 49.116); Comm. Rom 7:5 (CO 49.122); Comm. Rom 8:7 (CO 49.143); Comm. Phil 2:13 (CO 52.31–2); Comm. John 6:45 (CO 47.150). 66 E.g., III.xi.13–20 (OS 4.197–204); III.xv.1–3 (OS 4.239–42); Comm. Rom 3:27 (CO 49.65); Serm. Isa 24:16 (SC 2.365). Calvin interprets merit, whether “condign” (meritum de condigno) or “congruent” (meritum de congruo), as dependent upon the idea of free will and cooperation in salvation; he rejects the idea that good works are wholly or partially responsible for our justification before God, since this would be to rob God of the glory which is his in freely justifying sinners. 67 E.g., III.xiv.13–14 (OS 4.232–3). 68 E.g., Comm. Rom 9:16 (CO 49.183): “Ubi enim erit mutua cooperatio, reciprocum etiam erit elogium”; Comm. John 15:16 (CO 47.346); Comm. Phil 2:13 (CO 52.33–4). 69 E.g., Comm. Eph 2:8–10 (CO 51.165–7). 70 E.g., Comm. Phil 2:13 (CO 52.32); Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.531–6). 71 Comm. Eph 2:8 (CO 51.165): “Nam si ex parte Dei est sola gratia: nos autem nihil praeter fidem afferimus, quae nos spoliat omni laude: sequitur, non esse ex nobis. Nonne hoc modo et liberum arbitrium, et bonae intentiones, et praeparationes fictitiae, et merita, et satisfactiones conticescant oportet?” 72 III.xv.6 (OS 4.244).

108

Part 2

verting his office in redemption.73 Consequently, they deprive us of the “sum of all piety,”74 justification by grace alone through faith, and they take from God the praise which is his alone in salvation, thus insulting his goodness.75 Whenever our justification depends on something other than God’s benevolence in Christ, boasting in our own strength ensues, and serious injury is done to God’s honor in justification. Not only is serious injury done to God’s honor, but it is also no longer possible for us to find that peace of conscience that derives from a recognition of God’s mercy. This is the second thing that must be noted in free justification: it alone affords believers peaceful rest and confidence in God’s presence. If we look to our own righteousness, the promises of God will be of no avail and we cannot but despair. As Calvin describes it, […] for to have faith is not to waver, to be borne up and down, to hesitate, to be held in suspense, to vacillate—finally, to despair. Rather, to have faith is to strengthen the mind with constant assurance and perfect confidence, to have a place to rest and plant your foot.76

This is why faith alone, not the consideration of free will and works of righteousness, must have an exclusive place in our justification. Its nature is “to prick up the ears and close the eyes—that is, to be intent upon the promise alone and to turn thought away from all worth or merit of man.”77 Both at the beginning and throughout the whole course of our justification before God, the sole basis for peace of conscience and rest is the awareness of his kindness and mercy that come through faith.78 If we turn elsewhere, to a 73 Comm. 1 John 2:22 (CO 55.324–5); Comm. Col 1:12 (CO 52.83). In particular, Christ is deprived of his exclusive office as our priest. Cf. Serm. sur la Prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.686): “Or que veulent faire les Papistes? Ils veulent aneantir la Sacrificature de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, ils veulent qu’elle soit nulle.” 74 III.xv.7 (OS 4.245): “Ita Sorbonicae scholae, errorum omnium matres, iustificationem fidei, quae pietatis est totius summa, nobis sustulerunt.” 75 Comm. Matt 5:14 (CO 45.169–70). 76 III.xiii.3 (OS 4.218): “[…] non enim fluctuari, variare, sursum deorsum ferri, haesitare, suspensum teneri, vacillare, desperare denique, fidere est: sed constanti certitudine ac solida securitate animum obfirmare, habereque ubi recumbas ac pedem figas.” 77 III.xiii.4 (OS 4.219): “Ergo aut pereat nobis iustitia necesse est, aut ne veniant in considerationem opera, sed sola fides locum habeat, cuius isthaec natura est, aures arrigere, oculos claudere: hoc est, uni promissioni intentam esse, cogitationem avertere ab omni hominis vel dignitate vel merito.” 78 Though I have not stressed this point, Calvin conceives of justification as a definitive judgment accomplished once-for-all in Christ. Yet faith continually appeals to and appropriates this judgment throughout the whole course of life, since at no point is the believer without the need for God’s forgiveness and Christ’s righteousness. See, e.g., III.xiv (OS 4.220–39), which extensively treats the beginning and continual progress of justification, as its title suggests: “Quale initium iustificationis et continui progressus.” It is interesting to note that in this section Calvin acknowledges agreement with the “sounder Schoolmen” on the question of the beginning of justification. He rejects, however, the idea that, once reconciled to God, it is possible to be reck-

Justification by Faith

109

righteousness of our own on the basis of which we try to stand in his judgment, we only make ourselves guilty of having misjudged the severity of God’s law and of having deprived ourselves of hope: “[…] this would be only to lead us into false hope, to laugh at us and mock us.”79 Any conception of justification that requires an inherent righteousness, in terms of which God determines to accept us or receive us into his favor, can only obscure the gratuitous mercy of God in Christ and create a circumstance of uncertainty and even fear toward God.

7.4 Summary Calvin understands justification, the first benefit of our reception of God’s grace in Christ, to be that gracious and definitive judgment of God whereby he acquits those who by faith grasp the righteousness of Christ alone as the sole basis for their salvation. According to Calvin, free justification involves a complex transaction, comprising both the elements of the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Consequently, it is not based upon the righteousness of our works performed in obedience to the law. Therefore, Calvin repudiates the medieval and Scholastic doctrine of justification as a process whereby we are “made just” (iustum facere), with its corollary notion of an infused character or quality which contributes to or causes God to receive us into his favor. Only Christ, in virtue of his life of obedience and atoning death, possesses perfect righteousness as an inherent quality of his person. And only those who through faith acknowledge their own unrighteousness and flee to him are acceptable to God. Therefore, the righteousness of believers who are justified is an alien or imputed righteousness that is outside of themoned righteous before God or merit salvation by good works. III.xiv.11 (OS 4.230): “Nam de principio iustificationis nihil inter nos et saniores scholasticos pugnae est, quin peccator gratuito a damnatione liberatus, iustitiam obtineat, idque per remissionem peccatorum; nisi quod illi sub vocabulo iustificationis renovationem comprehendunt, qua per spiritum Dei reformamur in Legis obedientiam; iustitiam vero hominis regenerati sic describunt, quod homo per Christi fidem Deo semel reconciliatus, bonis operibus iustus censeatur apud Deum, et eorum merito sit acceptus.” E. David Willis, “Notes on A. Ganoczy’s Calvin, Theologien De L’Eglise Et Du Ministere,” Bibliotheque D’Humanisme Et Renaissance 30 (1968): 196–7, argues that the description given in this passage is reminiscent of Aquinas’ doctrine and that Calvin fails to do justice to Aquinas’ position. It remains unclear to whom Calvin wishes to refer in this passage. What is clear is his repudiation of the idea of merit or the confusion of justification with sanctification. 79 III.xiv.10 (OS 4.229). Since we never attain perfection in this life, God must repeatedly acquit us, and it is the acknowledgement of his willingness to do so that grants us comfort and hope. Cf. Comm. Ps 103:13 (CO 32.80); Comm. Gal 3:1 (CO 50.28–9); Comm. Rom 3:21 (CO 49.58–9) Comm. Rom 4:6 (CO 49.71–2). Also cf. Comm. Acts 13:39 (CO 48.306): “[…] toto vitae progressu nos per Christum iustificari a peccatis.”

110

Part 2

selves (extra nos esse). Though justified, they remain sinners who, throughout the whole course of their life, look to Christ as the sole basis of their salvation. Faith alone justifies because it excludes the righteousness of works, glories in God’s mercy alone, and finds peace of conscience in him. According to Calvin, this gracious judgment is the first word of the gospel of redemption in Christ and the chief tenet of all Christian preaching. It best expresses the truth that, in redeeming us, God shows himself merciful and favorably inclined toward us, despite our infidelity and disobedience toward him. The first word of the gospel, so far as human life before God is concerned, is a word of free acceptance upon the basis of God’s grace in Christ alone.

8. Sanctification or Repentance: the Second Benefit of the “Twofold Grace of God”

Calvin usually terms the second benefit of our reception of God’s grace in Christ, “regeneration” (regeneratio) or “repentance” (poenitentia).1 Though inseparably joined with justification and faith, this benefit must not be confused with it. “As faith is not without hope, yet faith and hope are different things, so repentance and faith, although they are held together by a permanent bond, require to be joined rather than confused.”2 Between this aspect of God’s grace and the first there exists an “unbreakable connection,”3 yet it is distinct from it in conception and nature. Whereas justification refers to our status as forgiven sinners, sanctification refers to the process by which our sinful condition is transformed through the work of the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, though justification is by faith alone, exclusive of the righteousness of works, Calvin contends that it is inextricably related to and accompanied by good works and the reformation of our life. Sanctification or repentance, as the second benefit of the believer’s union with Christ, constitutes Calvin’s comprehensive category for understanding the re-direction and alteration of the lives of those indwelt by Christ through the Spirit.

8.1 The Nature of Sanctification (Or Regeneration, Repentance) Calvin’s conception of sanctification is based upon the conviction that it is an effect of faith. “Now it ought not to be doubted that repentance not only 1 III.iii (OS 4.55) bears the title: “Fide nos regenerari; ubi de poenitentia.” Calvin uses a variety of terms to describe this aspect of God’s grace in Christ, and makes no effort to distinguish between them. Among the more important of these are “sanctification,” “renewal” or “reformation of life,” “rebirth,” and “conversion.” Unlike the highly technical and more complex terminology of later Reformed and Lutheran doctrines of an ordo salutis, Calvin’s language is rather fluid. He wishes only to describe redemption in terms of the twofold benefit of our incorporation into Christ through faith and the working of the Spirit. As noted in my introduction, I am often using the term “sanctification,” while Calvin more commonly speaks of “regeneration” or “repentance.” 2 III.iii.5 (OS 4.59): “Quemadmodum sine spe fides non est, et tamen fides ac spes varia sunt: ita poenitentia et fides, quanquam perpetuo inter se vinculo cohaerent, magis tamen coniungi volunt quam confundi.” 3 Comm. Acts 20:21 (CO 48.463): “[…] individuo nexu inter se cohaereant poenitentia et fides.”

112

Part 2

immediately follows faith, but is produced by it.”4 This does not mean that repentance or sanctification is chronologically subsequent to faith in the sense that faith could genuinely express itself for a time before sanctification occurs. Rather, it means that “a man cannot apply himself seriously to repentance without knowing himself to belong to God.”5 Sanctification or repentance is produced by faith and follows upon it since, unless we acknowledge that God is favorable toward us and readily inclined to forgive, there is little likelihood that we will devote ourselves to his service. Calvin acknowledges that when the term “regeneration” is used as a synonym for the general creative and life-giving work of the Spirit in us, faith may be said to be a part of and follow from regeneration. But ordinarily he understands it to be a synonym for sanctification or repentance, which follows upon faith as an effect of our reception of God’s grace in Christ through the work of the Spirit. Commenting on John 1:13, Calvin notes: It seems as if the Evangelist puts things back to front by making regeneration prior to faith, since it is rather the result of faith and therefore follows it (quum potius effectus sit fidei, ideoque posterior). I reply that the two orders are in perfect agreement: by faith we receive the incorruptible seed by which we are born again to new and divine life (fide concipimus incorruptibile semen, quo in novam et divinam vitam renascimur); and also, faith is itself the work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children of God. Thus, in many respects, faith is a part of regeneration (diversos respectus fides regenerationis nostrae pars est), an entering into the kingdom of God, that he may number us among his children. The enlightening of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal. So faith flows from its source, regeneration (ex regeneratione, tanquam ex fonte manat fides). But since by this same faith we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, it is called the beginning of our adoption.6

It is in this latter and more common sense, then, that Calvin uses the terms “regeneration,” “repentance,” and “sanctification” synonymously, and understands sanctification to form the second benefit of God’s grace in Christ as it is received through faith. 4 III.iii.1 (OS 4.55): “Poenitentiam vero non modo fidem continuo subsequi, sed ex ea nasci, extra controversiam esse debet.” 5 III.iii.2 (OS 4.56). It should be noted here, though it will become more evident when we discuss the relation of justification and regeneration, that Ganoczy’s argument that there is a temporal distinction between these two aspects is not correct. Calvin repeatedly speaks of the simultaneity of justification and regeneration, as we shall see. Cf. Ganoczy, Calvin, 105: “Mais en réalité pour Calvin il y a distinction dans le temps entre la justification et la régénération. Pour lui, la justification n’est pas proprement régénératrice.” Also cf. Willis, “Notes on A. Ganoczy’s Calvin, Theologien De L’Eglise Et Du Ministere,” 192–3. Willis points out that this misinterpretation of Ganoczy’s is based upon a misreading of a passage from Calvin’s commentaries that sets forth Calvin’s understanding of a double justification. As noted earlier, this latter understanding will be considered when we take up the question of the relation between justification and sanctification. 6 Comm. John 1:13 (CO 47.12–3). Cf. Comm. Acts 20:21 (CO 48.463).

Sanctification or Repentance

113

That Calvin ordinarily uses these three terms synonymously reflects his understanding that this reformation of human life, which comes about through faith, is not so much something we accomplish of ourselves, as it is a gift of God, effected by the Holy Spirit. Our sanctification is no less the fruit of the creative power of the Spirit of Christ than our justification. For Christ imparts the Spirit of regeneration to us in order that he may renew us within (Nam ideo spiritum regenerationis affert nobis Christus, ut nos intus renovet), and that a new life may then follow the renewal of mind and heart. For if the function of giving repentance belongs to Christ (Quod si in Christum competit munum dandae poenitentiae), it follows that it is not something that has been put in the power of man (in hominis facultate). And since it is truly something of a wonderful reformation, which makes us new creatures, restores the image of God in us, transfers us from the slavery of sin to the obedience of righteousness, men will no more convert themselves than to create themselves.7

Consequently, Calvin repudiates any suggestion that sanctification or the reformation of our life is something we can effect of ourselves to complement the free grace of God in Christ.8 Christ himself, through the operation of his Spirit, is the sole source of our purity, righteousness, and regeneration.9 Since sanctification is effected in us through the Spirit, it is as much the peculiar gift of God’s grace to us as is our justification.10 For this reason, both repentance and regeneration are by faith, and both are the free gift of Christ, who imparts them to us in the power of his Spirit. With this general understanding of sanctification as an effect of faith, and as a free gift of Christ, effected by his Spirit, we may now turn to Calvin’s more complete definition of sanctification or repentance. Once again Calvin provides us with a full definition of his own, which includes a comprehensive account of its more important components. Repentance can thus be well defined: it is the true turning of our life to God, a turning that arises from a pure and earnest fear of him; and it consists in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man, and in the vivification of the Spirit.11

7 Comm. Acts 5:31 (CO 48.111). 8 For this reason, Calvin denies that sanctification or repentance leaves room for free will to cooperate with God; it wholly depends upon God’s initiative. Cf. Comm. 1 Thess 5:23 (CO 52.178–9); Comm. Isa 1:16 (CO 36.43). God is the sole author of the whole work of salvation, and repentance is the proper work of the Spirit. 9 E.g., Comm. Acts 11:16 (CO 48.257); Comm. Acts 13:39 (CO 48.307); Comm. 1 John 2:17 (CO 55.320); Comm. 1 John 3:5 (CO 55.333); Comm. Mal 4:2 (CO 44.491). 10 Comm. Ezek 11:19, 20 (CO 40.246); Comm. Ezek 18:32 (CO 40.456). 11 III.iii.5 (OS 4.60): “[…] sic poenitentia definiri poterit, Esse veram ad Deum vitae nostrae conversionem, a sincero serioque Dei timore profectam, quae carnis nostrae veterisque hominis mortificatione, et spiritus vivificatione constet.” Cf. the definition given in the 1536 edition of the Institutes (OS 1.171): “Est itaque, meo quidem iudicio, poenitentia carnis nostrae veterisque

114

Part 2

Since this chapter’s purpose is to provide a summary account of the nature of the second aspect of the “twofold grace of God,” it will be enough to consider each of these components, following the order in which they occur in this definition. 1. Calvin opens his definition by identifying repentance with the “true turning of our life to God” (vera ad Deum vitae nostrae conversio). By opening his definition this way, stressing the character of repentance as a conversion, Calvin takes issue with the notion that repentance consists primarily in performing certain external acts.12 The outward practices traditionally associated with the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance are not, in Calvin’s conception of repentance, the chief thing in the conversion of our life to God.13 True repentance consists primarily in an inner renewal. As Calvin himself expresses it in his explanation of the nature of conversion, when “we call it a ‘turning of life to God,’ we require a transformation, not only in outward works, but in the soul itself” (non in operibus tantum externa, sed […] in anima ipse).14 Just as repentance presupposes a sinful hominis mortificatio, quam in nobis efficit verus ac sincerus timor Dei.” While a discussion which lies outside our primary interest here, it should be noted that this 1536 definition of repentance and the treatment accorded it led A. Ritschl to argue for a change in Calvin’s doctrine of repentance from the first edition, which stresses the aspect of mortification and appears to place repentance before faith and the assurance of forgiveness, to the later editions (1539–59), which stress both the aspects of mortification and vivification and place repentance “after” faith. See A. Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, 192–5; Köstlin, “Calvin’s Institution nach Form und Inhalt,” 460–3; Dee, Het Geloofsbegrip Van Calvijn, 178; and H. Strathmann, “Die Entstehung der Lehre Calvins von der Busse,” Calvinstudien: Festschrift zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvin, ed. J. Bohatec (Leipzig: Rudolph Haupt, 1909), 187–25. Strathmann provides a particularly good analysis of the question whether Calvin’s position underwent the kind of change that Ritschl alleges. Among other things, he points out that the 1536 edition does teach a repentance that presupposes faith; that this repentance includes the aspect of vivification and newness of life; and that, in Calvin’s Catechism of 1537 (a short version of his 1536 Institutes), true repentance is said to follow upon faith and comprise both the aspects of mortification and vivification. According to Strathmann, there is in the 1537 Catechism evidence of a distinction between what Calvin terms an initium poenitentia, which is composed of the fear of judgment and distress of conscience that precedes true repentance, and genuine repentance which follows upon faith. This distinction recurs to some extent in the later editions of the Institutes and in the Commentaries, where Calvin continues to speak, as in the definition cited here, of a timor Dei which leads to repentance. The most that can be said for Ritschl’s interpretation of the 1536 edition is that it does tend to identify repentance with the idea of an initium poenitentia. The importance of this whole question will arise again in connection with our analysis of the idea of timor Dei and its significance as a motive for repentance. 12 In particular, he wishes to refute the prevailing externalization of repentance in the sacrament of penance. Cf. III.iv.1 (OS 4.85–6): “[…] de interiori mentis renovatione, quae veram vitae correctionem secum trahit, [the Scholastics] mirum silentium.” 13 III.iii.17 (OS 4.74); III.iii.18 (OS 4.75–6). 14 III.iii.6 (OS 4.60). Cf. Serm. Deut 5:8–10 (CO 26.268): “Car ce n’est point assez que nous ayons retenu nos pieds, et nos mains, et nos yeux de mal faire: mais il faut que le coeur marche devant, et que Dieu soit servi de nous en vraye affection: et ceste affection-la ne doit point estre contrainte: mais doit proceder d’une vraye amour de Dieu.”

Sanctification or Repentance

115

condition, characterized by infidelity and hostility toward God, and just as sinful practices find their origin in a broken relation to God, so also in the renewal of that condition there must be an inner transformation in our attitude and relation to God. Accordingly, Calvin makes central to his definition of sanctification, not the reformation of external acts that superficially conform to God’s will, but the inner conversion of our hearts and dispositions.15 Therefore, the whole of Calvin’s treatment of repentance presumes that it involves an inward change in our relation toward God, which “finds a seat and resting place in the inmost affection of the heart.”16 Though Calvin acknowledges that good works are an important expression of this new disposition, they are not themselves the essential part of repentance. For Calvin, good works are best described as the “fruits of repentance,” since they spring from a renewed affection of the heart. Good works are performed when “all our outward members follow up this affection of the soul.”17 It is only when our works spring from this conversion or inner renewal of our soul, having the object to obey God and to consecrate our lives to him that they may be said to please God.18 Therefore, Calvin notes that “good works are called the fruits of repentance, for repentance is an inward thing that has its seat in the heart and soul, but results in the production of fruit by a change of life.”19 When Calvin defines repentance as a true conversion of our life to God, he wishes to identify it with this transformed affection of the heart that leads to works of repentance that please God. 2. After having defined repentance as an inner conversion of our life to God, Calvin adds that it arises “from a pure and earnest fear of him” (a sincero serioque Dei timore). In his exposition of this part of his definition in the Institutes, he notes that “before the mind of the sinner inclines to repentance, it must be aroused by thinking upon divine judgment.”20 There are two reasons in particular why repentance must be preceded by the fear 15 II.iii.16 (OS 4.73): “[…] externam vitae integritatem […] non esse caput poenitentiae, quia Deus cor intuetur. Quisquis mediocriter in Scriptura versatus fuerit, per se, absque alterius monitu, intelliget, ubi cum Deo negotium est, nihil agi nisi ab interiore cordis affectu incipimus.” 16 III.vi.4 (OS 4.149): “[…] sedemque et receptaculum invenit in intimo cordis affectu.” 17 Comm. Dan 9:4 (CO 41.135): “[…] quin sequantur hunc affectum membra omnia et omnes partes.” Cf. Serm. Matt 3:9–10 (CO 46.547): “La repentance, comme nous avons touché, est une chose cachee; elle ha son siege au coeur de l’homme, mais les fruits se declairent en toute la vie.” Serm. Job 1:1 (CO 33.28–9): “[…] nous sommes admomestez d’avoir une conformité entre le coeur et les sens exterieurs.” 18 Comm. Haggai 2:11–15 (CO 44.113). 19 Comm. Matt 3:8, Luke 3:8 (CO 45.118): “Notandum est, quod bona opera fructus vocantur poenitentiae: est enim poenitentia res interior, quae sedem in corde et anima habet, sed fructus deinde suos profert in vitae mutatione.” 20 III.iii.7 (OS 4.61): “Prius enim quam ad resipiscentiam mens peccatoris inclinetur, divini iudicii cogitatione excitari oportet.”

116

Part 2

of God. First, because of our natural obstinacy and slothfulness, we require God’s threatening us in order to appreciate how much he abominates sin. And second, we need to be reminded that, however replete our life is with virtues, without the true worship of God it remains unacceptable to him.21 Without this fear of God, we would be satisfied with our sinful condition and lack a sufficient motivation to turn our lives to God. It is not easy to determine what Calvin understands by timor Dei when he describes it in these terms and attributes this role to it in leading us to repentance. It is evidently composed of the elements of displeasure with sin and of an awareness that such sin is abominable to God. But if these were its exclusive components, it would be difficult to square this notion of the timor Dei with what Calvin says elsewhere on the subject of the motivation for true repentance. In a passage immediately preceding his definition of repentance, Calvin remarks that there are those who distinguish between “legal” and “gospel” repentance. The former consists of a sorrow for sin that springs from the dread of punishment, and the latter consists of a conversion to God that comes about when we are “aroused and refreshed” by his mercy.22 Moreover, both in this passage as well as in numerous others, Calvin apparently rejects the idea of repentance being induced solely by sorrow for sin and dread of punishment, and chooses rather to speak of God’s mercy as the most important motive for repentance, since without gratitude for God’s mercy, it is impossible to come to repentance.23 How are we to understand this notion of timor Dei, which figures so prominently in his definition of repentance? And how is it compatible with Calvin’s emphasis upon gratitude as the basic motive for repentance? To argue that these are incompatible accounts of the motive for repentance would ignore Calvin’s own awareness of this question, and his conviction that true timor Dei is inseparable from, even dependent upon, assurance of faith and gratitude for God’s mercy. According to Calvin, this fear 21 III.iii.7 (OS 4.61–2). 22 III.iii.4 (OS 4.58–9). This distinction was employed by other Reformers, including Bucer and Melanchthon. It is largely the same distinction as that between the initium poenitentia and repentance proper, which was noted above. The problem of interpreting Calvin’s understanding of the timor Dei arises from the apparently inconsistent ways in which he describes the motive or beginning of true repentance; sometimes this motive seems to be simply fear of punishment, but more often it is identified with gratitude for God’s mercy in forgiving sin, and such fear is rejected as incompatible with the nature of genuine repentance. The resolution of this question has important implications for such questions as the place of the law and the gospel in Christian preaching, and whether an awareness of and sorrow for sin must precede the announcement of God’s gracious initiative in Christ. 23 See, e.g., III.vi.2 (OS 4.147); III.vi.3 (OS 4.148–9); Comm. Gen 6:18 (CO 23.124); Comm. Micah 7:18 (CO 43.429); Comm. Phil 4:6 (CO 52.61); Comm. Heb 1:18 (CO 55.224); Comm. 1 Peter 2:3 (CO 55.233); Comm. John 15:16 (CO 47.347); Comm. 2 Cor 5:14 (CO 50.67– 8); Comm. Isa 55:7 (CO 37 289).

Sanctification or Repentance

117

of God, though composed of sorrow for sin and the awareness of God’s judgment, is a “reverence compounded of honor and fear” (reverentia honore illo et timore mixta).24 Furthermore, it is a voluntary humility that one would expect from children who know that their disobedience and sin displease their father, and who are anxious to serve him, knowing and remaining confident of his paternal love and mercy.25 Such humility does not represent a servile dread of God’s judgment, but reverence for his majesty and holiness, which recognizes his utter displeasure with sin.26 Therefore, there are two quite distinct senses in which to understand the timor Dei. Calvin is careful to distinguish its true sense from the dread that characterizes a slave in the presence of his master whom he has badly served, which does not spring from a heartfelt love for God and a desire to please him.27 The timor Dei that leads to repentance is not, in its genuine sense, incompatible with faith or with faith’s assurance of God’s love. Such timor Dei expresses itself in hatred for sin and love and desire for justice. It causes us to submit willingly to God’s command.28 When Calvin defines repentance as arising from an earnest fear of God, the fear of which he speaks is produced in us “by the knowledge of the power, equity, and mercy of God.”29 Not only is this fear compatible with an acknowledgement of and gratitude for God’s mercy, but it also may be said to depend wholly “on a perception of God’s goodness and favor.”30 24 III.ii.26 (OS 4.36). Such reverence is no more inconsistent with an awareness of God’s love than God’s majesty and holiness are inconsistent with his mercy. Cf. Serm. Luke 1:11–15 (CO 46.29): “Notons bien donc que nous ne pouvons pas estre vuides de toute crainte. Encores que Dieu nous testifie qu’il sera nostre pere, et qu’il nous propose sa grace si doucement que rien plus, encores est-il impossible que nous ne le craignions.” 25 See, e.g., III.ii.27 (OS 4.37); I.iv.4 (OS 3.43); Comm. Josh 2:9 (CO 25.442); Comm. Exod 14:31 (CO 24.155–6) ; Comm. Phil 2:13 (CO 52.33); Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.883). Cf. Serm. Job 31:9–15 (CO 34.654): “Voila donc comme les fideles se doivent induire à chasteté, non point d’une crainte forcee seulement, mais en cognoissant la grace et l’honneur que Dieu leur a fait, quand il voulu ainsi approcher d’eux: qu’ils ne demandent donc aussi sinon devenir à luy par le moyen de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ.” Also cf. Serm. 2 Sam 6:12 (SC 1.152): “Et la crainte doit tellement [i.e., joy in the service of God] estre conoincte, que cependant nous ne doutions point de la bonté paternelle enuers nous. Car autrement, tout le service que nous luy rendrons, sera efforcé.” 26 See, e.g., Comm. Luke 7:16 (CO 45.239–40); Comm. Jonah 1:16 (CO 43.230); I.iv.4 (OS 3.43). Cf. Serm. Deut 5:8–10 (CO 26.266): “Car Dieu demande des services volontaires, il ne veut pas seulement que nous le servoins par une crainte servile: mais il veut que nous y venions d’un courage franc, et alegre, que mesme nous prenions plaisir à l’honorer.” 27 See, e.g., Comm. Acts 2:37 (CO 48.50–1); Comm. Rom 11:19 (CO 49.222). In these passages, as well as in many of those cited previously, Calvin correlates a true timor Dei with an awareness of God’s goodness and mercy. True repentance is not motivated simply by a fear of judgment, but is a free and joyful service of God for his own sake. The significance of this will become more evident when we consider the specific relation of justification to sanctification. 28 Comm. Matt 27:3 (CO 45.747). 29 Comm. Ps 40:4 (CO 31.406). 30 Comm. Micah 7:18 (CO 43.429).

118

Part 2

3. Sanctification or repentance is an inner transformation of our whole life to God, which is rooted in the timor Dei. This fear is not a slavish submission to God, but the voluntary reverence of a child who recognizes the love and mercy of his father. Having examined these elements of Calvin’s definition of repentance, we still need to consider his further claim that this conversion consists of two mutually related parts: the mortification (mortificatio) of the flesh and the vivification (vivificatio) of the Spirit. Both mortification and vivification are integral to Calvin’s conception of the nature of repentance, and both are consistent with his conviction that it is a lifelong process of renewal that has to do primarily with the transformation of the affection of our hearts. By mortification, or the first part of repentance, Calvin refers to the process by which the old self, our sinful condition, is put off as a precondition for our allowing God to live in us and rule over us by his Spirit.31 For Calvin, this process is never complete in this life, but represents a life-long struggle wherein the power of sin is broken, though it still continues to trouble and affect us. Those who are regenerated by the Spirit of God are not perfect, nor do they ever attain perfection in this life. The power of sin and death, the affections of the flesh, self-love, concupiscence or inordinate desire, remain at work in them.32 As Calvin describes it, there “still remains in a regenerate man a smoldering cinder (fomes) of evil, from which desires continually leap forth to allure and spur him to commit sin.”33 Insofar as this is true, repentance includes an urgent battle with the old self. It involves our 31 See, e.g., Comm. Phil 3:10 (CO 52.50); Comm. Col 3:5 (CO 52.119). Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, eds. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 4/2:574ff, argues that Calvin’s understanding of conversion suffers from “a curious over-emphasising of mortificatio at the expense of vivificatio which might be justified to some extent from the older but not from later prophets of the Old Testament, and certainly not from what is understood by metanoia in the New” (575). He adds further that there is a genuine inconsistency between Calvin’s reference to the fear of God as the principium poenitentiae and his claim that the knowledge of his grace through faith leads to genuine repentance (580–1). It should be remembered that Calvin does qualify his understanding of the fear of God in such a way as to show its compatibility with faith’s awareness of God’s grace. Furthermore, Calvin’s understanding of mortification is the converse of his understanding of vivification, and is wholly directed to it, as we shall see. We must die to ourselves, according to Calvin, in order that we might live to God. 32 See, e.g., III.iii.10 (OS 4.65–6); III.xiv.9 (OS 4.228); II.i.8 (OS 3.238); II.i.9 (OS 3.38–9); Comm. Rom 7:7 (CO 49.124); Comm. 1 John 5:16 (CO 55.372); Comm. Matt 5:28 (CO 45.179); Serm. Job 31:1–4 (CO 34.426–30); Serm. Deut 5:21 (CO 26.374–5). Calvin, in contrast to many medieval Scholastic theologians, argues that concupiscence, or any desire contrary to God’s will (whether expressed in act or not), is sin and merits God’s judgment. This is consistent with his emphasis upon the primacy of a right disposition in repentance. It also forms a significant part of his refutation of the idea that we can fulfill the law or merit salvation. 33 III.iii.10 (OS 4.65): “Atque in ea re omnes sanioris iudicii scriptores inter se consentiunt, manere in homine regenerato mali fomitem, unde perpetuo scateant cupiditates quae ipsum ad peccandum illiciant et extimulent.”

Sanctification or Repentance

119

crucifying the flesh with all its affections that conflict with wholehearted love for God and his righteousness. While Calvin acknowledges that sin’s reign has been broken, he hastens to add that it still retains its power to affect us adversely. God truly carries this out by regenerating his own people, so that the sway of sin is abolished in them (peccati regnum in ipsis aboleatur). For the Spirit dispenses a power whereby they may gain the upper hand and become victors in the struggle. But sin ceases only to reign; it does not also cease to dwell in them (sed regnare tantum, non etiam habitare desinit).34

Mortification remains an integral part of repentance as that struggle, carried out by the power of Christ’s Spirit, in which the law of sin and death, the flesh and the old self, are renounced and forsaken. For Calvin this process of mortification has a counterpart: the vivification of the Spirit. Together with mortification, its precondition and corollary, vivification comprises a single process of transformation. Mortification is the negative expression of this process, while vivification is its positive expression. In his commentary on Heb 4:10, Calvin describes the nature of this integral relation between mortification and vivification in repentance. This is where we must always make a beginning when we speak of the rule of pious and holy living, that a man should be in a sense dead to allow God to live in him; that he should be cut off from his own works so as to give room for God to act. It must be admitted that a life is properly formed when and only when it is yielded to God.35

The process of sanctification consists of resting from the works of the flesh and yielding our whole life to the leading of the Spirit of Christ. Ceasing the work of the flesh is our mortification and yielding to the leading of the Spirit is our vivification. In this way, we die to ourselves in order that we might live to God.36 Mortification and vivification require “renouncing our own intelligence and bidding farewell to all the affections of the flesh” so 34 III.iii.II (OS 4.66). Cf. Serm. Deut 5:21 (CO 26.383): “Combien que nous ayons eu la victoire par la grace de Dieu, et que le peché n’ait point regné en nous: si est’ce qu’il y habite tousiours, et qu’il y a quelque ordure et macule.” Also cf. Comm. Gal 5:16 (CO 50.252); Comm. Rom 6:12 (CO 49.111); Comm. Rom 7:15 (CO 9.129). It is important to note in this connection that Calvin interprets Romans 7 as a description of the condition of the regenerate. 35 Comm. Heb 4:10 (CO 55.48). Cf. Serm. Jer 17:17–23 (SC 6.129): “Voulons nous donc que Dieu regne, il faut que 1’homme soit abbatu. Maintenant nous voyons quelle doibt estre l’observation du repos, voire l’observation spirituelle, c’est que l’homme ne se donne point de liberté de faire ce qu’il veult mais qu’il se renge à Dieu, afin qu’il ait la domination sur tout. Or cela a esté signiffié par ung jour qui a esté appellé jour de repos.” Also cf. Serm. Deut 5:12–14 (CO 26.284–8), where Calvin ascribes the same “spiritual” meaning to the observation of Sabbath rest. It is this direct and immediate relation of mortification to vivification which leads me to demure from Barth’s judgment (Church Dogmatics, IV/2:575) that Calvin over-emphasizes mortification at the expense of vivification. 36 Comm. Phil 3:10 (CO 52.50): “[…] moriendum esse antequam vivamus.”

120

Part 2

that “we are prepared to be reduced to nothing so that God may live and reign in us.”37 Vivification of the Spirit presupposes the denial of ourselves that allows us to yield to the Spirit. On this basis it “comes to pass when the Spirit of God so imbues our souls, steeped in his holiness, with both new thoughts and feelings, that they can be rightly considered new.”38 With this brief summary of Calvin’s definition of repentance, we have largely described his understanding of the second aspect of the “twofold grace of God.” Before turning to Calvin’s description of the Christian life, however, we need to note two alternative and important descriptions of repentance often used by Calvin. These descriptions complement his more common use of “regeneration” and “repentance” to describe this second benefit of God’s grace in Christ, and contribute to a complete understanding of its nature. The first of these descriptions, one which Calvin is particularly fond of using, is his reference to regeneration or repentance as that continual process by which the image of God is restored in us.39 This description is of particular interest in that it reflects Calvin’s understanding of the relation between redemption and creation, and of the character of repentance as a slow advance that never reaches its goal in this life. In the Institutes, Calvin provides an interesting account of this relation between redemption and creation, and of the character of this slow advance in the restoration of the image of God. I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God (cuius non alius est scopus nisi ut imago Dei […] in nobis reformetur) that had been disfigured and all but obliterated through Adam’s transgression […]. And indeed this restoration does not take place in one moment or one day or one year; but through continual and sometimes even slow advances God wipes out in his elect the corruptions of the flesh, cleanses them of guilt, consecrates them to himself as temples renewing all their minds to true purity that they may practice repentance throughout their lives and know that this warfare will end only in death.40

The single goal (scopus) of our repentance or regeneration is nothing other than the destruction of sin and the reversal of the vitiating effects of the Fall. Its aim is the re-formation of the image of God in us. Accordingly, Calvin understands it as a process whereby we are granted life from the dead41 and 37 Comm. Matt 16:24 (CO 45.481): “[…] renuntiantes proprio ingenio, et omnibus carnis affectibus valere iussis, parati simus in nihilum redigi, modo in nobis vivat ac regnet Deus.” 38 III.iii.8 (OS 4.62). 39 See, e.g., I.xv.4 (OS 3.179); Comm. Eph 4:22 (CO 51.207); Comm. Col 3:9 (CO 52.121); Comm. Col 3:10 (CO 52.121). 40 III.iii.9 (OS 4.63–5). 41 Comm. Rom 4:17 (CO 49.81). Cf. Serm. Isa 29:23 (SC 2.644); Serm. Isa 27:11 (SC 2.500).

Sanctification or Repentance

121

as a “second creation” that manifests “a far more rich and powerful grace of God” than the first.42 Regeneration or repentance, because it means the restoration of the image of God in us, amounts to that new creative work of God that reverses the effects of our willful disobedience against him. A second alternative and complementary description of repentance often used by Calvin is his use of the term “sanctification.” Just as Calvin ordinarily uses “regeneration” and “repentance” as synonyms, so also he ordinarily uses “sanctification” as synonymous with either of these terms.43 As was true of his conception of repentance, sanctification is the process of consecrating ourselves and all our actions to God, and it comprises both our ceasing to live for ourselves and our devotion to the will of God.44 Peculiar to the idea of sanctification is our being set apart for God’s service by his Spirit. We are sanctified in order that our whole existence might belong to God and be put to a sacred, rather than a common, use.45 While the process of sanctification is identical with our regeneration or repentance, it specifically denotes that we are purified in this process from the corruption of sin, and consecrated as holy vessels devoted to the service of God’s will.46 The language of “sanctification” confirms the nature of our repentance as a conversion to God, whose goal is not only the restoration of God’s image in us, but also the re-establishment of his claim upon us as those who were created for fellowship with and obedience to him.

42 Comm. Eph 4:24 (CO 51.208): “Quamquam longe uberior est ac potentior Dei gratia in hac secunda creatione, quam prima fuerit.” This is not an isolated statement and is of particular interest, since Calvin so often speaks of redemption in terms of the “restoration” of fallen creation and humanity. In adopting this position that our second creation exceeds the first, Calvin is following the classical tradition often associated with Ireneus. Cf. Comm. 1 Cor 15:45 (CO 49.558): “[…] conditionem, quam per Christum consequimur, longe potiorem esse quam fuerit sors primi hominis”; Comm. Gen 3:7 (CO 23.64); II.xii.6 (OS 3.444); I.xv.4 (OS 3.179–81). 43 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 8:9 (CO 49.144); Serm. Jer 17:17–23 (SC 6.128): “[…] 1’Escripture appelle sanctiffication ceste mortiffication de chair et ce que noz appetitz desordonnez sont abbatuz pour ne plus regner en nous. Et puis qu’il nous reforme par son sainct Esprit, afin que nous ne voullions plus autre chose que sa volonté, voila la sanctiffication qu’il faict en nous. Nous voyons donce en somme que ceste sanctiffication du repos consiste en deux choses.” 44 Comm. Rom 12:1 (CO 49.234). 45 E.g., Comm. 1 Cor 1:2 (CO 49.308): “Sanctificari ergo in Christo opportet omnes, qui in populo Dei censeri volunt. Porro sanctificationis verbum segregationem significat. Ea fit in nobis quum per spiritum in vitae novitatem regeneramur, ut serviamus Deo, et non mundo.” Serm. Deut 5:12–14 (CO 26.284): “Or quand 1’Escriture nous parle d’estre sanctifiez à Dieu: c’est pour nous separer de tout ce qui est contraire à son service.” Cf. Comm. Heb 10:22 (CO 55.130); Comm. Eph 5:25 (CO 51.223); Comm. Rom 6:19 (CO 49.117); Comm. Rom 8:10 (CO 49.145): Comm. Exod 19:6 (CO 24.197). 46 Comm. 1 Thess 4:3 (CO 52.161).

122

Part 2

8.2 Repentance and The Christian Life In his Institutes, Calvin follows his treatment of sanctification or repentance, the second aspect of the “twofold grace of God,” with a well-known treatise on the Christian life.47 This indicates his belief that the Christian life is, in all of its aspects, fundamentally a life in transition from a condition of rebellion and disobedience to a condition of faith and obedient love. After establishing that the goal of repentance “is to manifest in the life of believers a harmony or agreement between God’s righteousness and their obedience,” Calvin remarks that “it will be profitable to assemble from various passages of Scripture a pattern for the conduct of life (rationem vitae formandae) in order that those who heartily repent may not err in their zeal.”48 By taking up the subject of the Christian life, Calvin aims to present a short discourse on how Christians ought to conduct their lives and lay down a “universal rule” (regulam universalem) to determine their duties before God.49 While a full treatment of this treatise on the Christian life lies outside the scope of this study, there are several features of it that deserve brief comment since they clarify Calvin’s understanding of the nature of repentance. These features are: 1) Calvin’s understanding of the life of Christ as the pattern to which the Christian life must conform; 2) his corrollary assertion that self-denial forms the sum of the Christian life; 3) his treatment of the Christian life as a meditation on the future life; and 4) his discussion of the Christian’s “use” (usus) of this world.

47 III.vi-x (OS 4.146–81). In terms of the structure of the Institutes, it is interesting to note that Calvin also follows his treatment of justification with a section on Christian freedom as an “appendix” of justification; III.xix (OS 4.282–96): “De libertate Christiana.” In both instances, he wishes to stress the bearing each of these aspects of the “twofold grace of God” has upon Christian existence. 48 III.vi.1 (OS 4.16). Calvin also notes at this point that “the law of God contains in itself that newness by which his image can be restored in us,” thereby linking his account of the Christian life with his preceding discussion of the law in II.viii (OS 3.343–98). Cf. Jacobs, Prädestination, 103, who observes that this account of the Christian life is an extension of the commentary on the Decalogue. 49 III.vi.1 (OS 4.147). There are a number of comprehensive studies of Calvin’s understanding of the Christian life. See, e.g., Georgia Harkness, John Calvin: The Man and his Ethics (New York: Henry Holt, 1931); W. Kolfhaus, Vom Christlichen Leben Nach Johannes Calvin (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1949); R.S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life; John H. Leith, John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1989).

Sanctification or Repentance

123

8.2.1 The Life of Christ as a Pattern Calvin’s definition of sanctification or repentance as consisting of two parts, the mortification of the flesh and the vivification of the Spirit, corresponds to his understanding of the Christian life as one of conformity to the crucified and resurrected Christ. Because repentance follows upon faith, which unites and engrafts us into Christ, it so unites us to Christ that he “coalesces daily more and more into one body with us, till he becomes altogether one with us.”50 When we become one with Christ, we participate in his death and resurrection. Both things happen to us by participation in Christ. For if we truly partake in his death, “our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin perishes,” that the corruption of original nature may no longer thrive. If we share in his resurrection, through it we are raised up into newness of life to correspond with the righteousness of God.51

It is in this sense that we are to understand Christ as the standard for the Christian life; his death and resurrection are the pattern for those who are united with him. When Calvin opens his short discourse on the Christian life, he affirms that the Father has in Christ “stamped for us the likeness (imaginem) to which he would have us conform,” and that he […] has been set before us as an example (exemplar), whose pattern we ought to express in our life […]. For we have been adopted as sons by the Lord with this one condition: that our life express Christ, the bond of our adoption.52

In this manner, Christ is the patron and example for all those who belong to him,53 and it is permissible to describe the whole of the Christian life as an imitatio Christi,54 so long as this imitation is understood to depend upon our union with him through the regenerating power of his Spirit. The Christian 50 III.ii.24 (OS 4.35): “[…] in unum corpus nobiscum coalescit in dies magis ac magis, donec unum penitus nobiscum fiat.” 51 III.iii.9 (OS 4.63). 52 III.vi.3 (OS 4.148): “[…] ita in eo nobis imaginem signasse ad quam nos conformari velit […] Christum […] nobis propositum esse exemplar cuius formam in vita nostra exprimamus […]. Hac enim conditione si adoptamur in filios a Domino, ut Christum, nostrae adoptionis vinculum, vita nostra repraesentet.” 53 See, e.g., Serm. Deut 8:10–14 (CO 26.611): “patron”; Serm. Deut 8:1–4 (CO 26.590): “example”; Serm. Job 4:7–11 (CO 33.196): “le Chef, et le miroir, et le patron”; Serm. Matt 27:27– 44 (CO 46.906); Serm. Matt 26:36–9 (CO 46.839): “La regle et le miroir de tout iustice sainctete et perfection.” 54 See, e.g., Comm. Matt 11:29 (CO 45.322): “Potius enim, qui propter carnis contumaciam iugum eius tanquam asperum et difficile refugimus, nos ad imitationem sui format.” Comm. 1 Peter 4:1 (CO 55.270): “Tametsi non simpliciter considerandis est nobis Christus tanquam exemplum, ubi de carnis mortificatione agitur: sed spiritu eius vere inserimur in eius mortem, ut ipsa in nobis sit efficax ad crucifigendam carnem nostram.” Cf. Serm. sur la Passion de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 46.858); Serm. sur la Prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.638).

124

Part 2

life, as a constant process of repentance, involves our allowing Christ to conform us to himself through the operation of his Spirit.

8.2.2 Self-Denial: the Sum of the Christian Life In his description of the Christian’s conformity to the example of Christ, Calvin especially stresses the importance of self-denial and cross-bearing. Just as Christ emptied himself, took the form of a servant, and gave himself unto death on behalf of others, so the Christian (who is not greater than his Master) must deny himself, bear affliction and adversity with patience, and give himself on behalf of his neighbor in need.55 According to Calvin, genuine self-denial that conforms to Christ seeks “not the things that are ours but those which are of the Lord’s will and will serve to embrace his glory.”56 Such self-denial involves our acknowledging that we are not our own, but belong wholly to God. “Let this therefore be the first step, that a man depart from himself in order that he may apply the whole force of his ability in the service of the Lord.”57 It is impossible to be pleasing to God without such self-denial, since it is the basic precondition for the love of God and the love of neighbor that together comprise the whole will and law of God for human life. In his descriptions of the Christian life of self-denial, Calvin particularly emphasizes its intrinsic relation to love toward our neighbors. Only when we deny ourselves and eschew our natural self-love can we give ourselves without reserve to others.58 Genuine love for our neighbor does not depend upon his character or virtue, since it ought to be enough for us that he is a bearer of the image of God.59 According to Calvin, the Christian’s love for 55 III.vii-viii (OS 4.151–70). This theme of self-denial and bearing the cross is a pervasive one in Calvin’s theology. Cf. Serm. Job 2:7–10 (CO 33.121): “Car voila à quelle condition [namely, bearing the cross] Dieu nous a entez au corps de son Fils, ainsi qu’il est le patron general de tous fideles, comme S. Paul en traitte au huictieme des Romains.” Also cf. Serm. 2 Tim 2:8–13 (CO 54.132); Serm. Gal 6:12–13 (CO 51.117). 56 III.vii.2 (OS 4.152). Cf. III.vii.8–10 (OS 4.158–61). 57 III.vii.1 (OS 4.151). 58 III.vii.5 (OS 4.155): “Iam in quaerenda proximi ultilitate officium praestare, quantum habet difficultatis? Nisi a tui consideratione discedas, et te quodammodo exuas, nihil hic efficies.” Here again Calvin intends to take issue with those Scholastic theologians who taught the compatibility of self-love with genuine love for one’s neighbour. Frequently in his writings, Calvin argues that natural love of self stands in the way of genuine self-giving on behalf of one’s brother. See, e.g., Comm. Matt 22:39 (CO 45.612); Comm. Gal 5:14 (CO 50.251–2); Comm. 1 Cor 13:5 (CO 49.519–20); Comm. John 13:35 (CO 47.319); Serm. Micah 2:1–3 (SC 5.42); Serm. 1 Cor 10:31–11:1 (CO 49.707). 59 It is characteristic for Calvin to refer to the imago Dei and to our common nature as a sufficient motive for loving our neighbour. See, e.g., III.vii.6 (OS 4.156–7); I.xv.3–4 (OS 3.176–81); II.viii.45 (OS 3.384); Serm. Job 16:1–9 (CO 34.9); Serm. Job 31:9–15 (CO 34.655); Serm. Titus

Sanctification or Repentance

125

his neighbor is not a “mercenary” love; it is not a love that is based upon a consideration of what benefits will accrue to us when we supply our neighbor’s need, but a free embrace of others that does not count the cost because it springs from a recognition of God’s selfless love for us in Christ.60 Calvin notes that “God […] is invisible, but he represents himself to us in the brethren and in their persons demands what is due to himself. Love to men springs only from the fear and love of God.”61 Since God is love, “none can abide in him unless he loves his brethren.”62 Because Christ himself is the proof of God’s love, it belongs to those who are his by faith to emulate his self-forgetfulness on their behalf. It was a remarkable proof of the highest love that forgetful, as it were of himself, Christ spared not his own life, that he might redeem us from death. If we wish to be partakers of this benefit, we must be moved similarly towards our neighbor.63

After examining the Christian life as a conformity to Christ that consists in the denial of ourselves, Calvin turns to the subject of bearing the cross, which is a part of genuine self-denial. If we are united with Christ through his Spirit and through faith, our fellowship with him must also include a fellowship with his cross. Although this fellowship has no redemptive significance beyond that which belongs exclusively to Christ’s cross, the Christian life cannot escape the cross-bearing that occurs when believers struggle with the continuing power of sin and the chronic problem of suffering. To belong wholly to God entails a difficult and costly discipleship. It teaches us to rely solely upon God’s faithful mercy and calls us to hope for the future.64 According to Calvin, bearing the cross teaches us that there is consolation in God alone. Though it differs markedly from a kind of Stoic insensibility to suffering,65 it shows us that “patience” in affliction is an 2:1–2 (CO 53.128); Serm. Gal 6:9–11 (CO 51.105). Cf. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, 148–52, for a discussion of this motive. 60 See, e.g., Comm. Luke 6:35 (CO 45.186–7); Comm. Luke 14:12 (CO 45.396); Comm. Matt 22:39 (CO 45.612); Comm. 1 John 4:1 (CO 55.355). In this connection, Calvin argues that our self-denial, stewardship of our goods on behalf of our neighbour, and giving of alms are all aspects of our conformity to God’s humane and merciful relation to us. Cf. Serm. Job 31:16–23 (CO 34.662): “Or nous voyons que Dieu s’attribue de ce tilter-la entre les autres, qu’il est humain et misericordieux: nous ne pouvons point donc estre ses enfans, et il ne nous avouera point tels, sinon que nous taschions à nous conformer à son exemple en cest endroit.” 61 Comm. Gal 5:14 (CO 50.251): “Iam dixi Deum esse invisibilem: se autem nobis repraesentat in fratribus, et in illorum persona quod sibi debetur exigit.” 62 Comm. 1 John 4:15 (CO 55.356). 63 Comm. Eph 5:2 (CO 51.214): “Hoc singulare fuit argumentum summae caritatis, quod Christus quasi sui oblitus propriae vitae non pepercit, ut nos a morte redimeret. Huius beneficii si participes velimus esse, similiter erga proximos affecti simus oportet.” 64 III.viii.3 (OS 4.163); III.viii.5–8 (OS 4.164–7). 65 See, e.g., III.viii.9–11 (OS 4.167–70); Comm. Gen 45:1 (CO 23.552); Comm. Exod 32:19 (CO 25.90); Comm. Num 31:14 (CO 25.318); Comm. 1 Thess 4:13 (CO 52.165); Comm. John

126

Part 2

invariable companion of faith.66 Because of God’s love for us in Christ, we are able to bear our cross and suffer affliction without succumbing to despair. For we know that, when we bear our cross, we have fellowship with Christ and can still to give thanks through him. When we bear this cross, […] what is more appropriate or suitable to pacify us than when we learn that God embraces us so lovingly in Christ that he turns to our advantage and welfare everything that befalls us? Let us, therefore, bear in mind that it is a singular remedy for correcting our impatience to turn our eyes from looking at the present misfortunes which torment us and consider rather how God is disposed toward us in Christ.67

8.2.3 The Christian Life as Meditation on the Future Life An important aspect of Calvin’s treatise on the Christian life, and one that follows quite naturally from his treatment of self-denial and cross-bearing, is his understanding of the Christian’s “meditation on the future life” (meditatio futurae vitae). While it is possible to emphasize too strongly this aspect of his treatise,68 it serves to allay any suspicion that Calvin emphasizes too much the theme of victory or presents too confident a picture of its character in his description of the Christian life. For Calvin, the Christian life always includes the dimension of hope, or perseverance in faith, and it is always directed beyond itself toward the consummation of God’s purpose in redeeming us.69 11:33 (CO 47.266); Comm. Phil 2:27 (CO 52.41). One obvious reason for Calvin’s concern to distinguish his understanding from that of Stoicism is the affinity between his view of crossbearing and features of a Stoic ethic. See Charles Partee, Calvin and Classical Philosophy, 116ff, for a discussion of Calvin’s relation to Stoicism, particularly in his doctrine of providence. 66 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 8:25 (CO 49.156); Comm. Rom 15:4 (CO 49.271); Comm. 1 Thess 1:9 (CO 52.144); Comm. 2 Thess 1:4 (CO 52.188); Comm. Rom 12:12 (CO 49.242); Comm. 1 Thess 5:18 (CO 52.175); Comm. 2 Thess 3:4 (CO 52.211). 67 Comm. 1 Thess 5:8 (CO 52.175). This passage confirms that Calvin’s understanding of God’s providential care is informed by God’s revelation of his love in Christ; it is not based upon a general or abstract conviction that God’s will is all-determinative. 68 As does Martin Schulze, in his Meditatio Futurae Vitae: ihr Begriff und ihre herrschende Stellung im System Calvins (Leipzig, 1901). Schulze, as the title of his work suggests, thinks that Calvin’s ethics are dominated by an eschatological orientation which leads him to disparage this life and to endorse a kind of “monastic” attitude towards its goods. A more balanced appraisal of this idea of meditation on the future life is given by Heinrich Quistorp, in his Calvin’s Doctrine of Last Things, trans. by H. Knight (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955), 40ff, 54. Cf. his comment, Calvin’s Doctrine of Last Things, 43: “The aspiration towards heavenly life cannot therefore imply any flight from the world but rather impels us already in this world to live another kind of life.” 69 Comm. 1 Cor 13:13 (CO 49.515): “Spes nihil aliud est quam fidei perserverantia. Postquam enim Dei verbo semel credidimus, restat perstemus usque ad rerum complementum. Proinde ut spei mater est fides, ita ab ea sustinetur ne excidat.”

Sanctification or Repentance

127

When Calvin defines the nature of the Christian’s meditation upon the future life, he begins by describing its significance for our attitude toward the present life. Meditation on the future consists of “contempt for the present life” to the extent that it is characterized by tribulation and the discipline of the cross. “Whatever kind of tribulation presses upon us, we must ever look to this end: to accustom ourselves to contempt for the present life and to be aroused thereby to meditate upon the future life.”70 Though this terminology of “contempt” might easily be misunderstood, Calvin distinguishes it from hatred of the present life or from ingratitude toward God, its author. “Indeed, this life, however crammed with infinite miseries it may be, is still rightly to be counted among those blessings of God which are not to be spurned.”71 After having described meditation on the future life in terms of “contempt” for the present life, Calvin notes that the converse of this contempt is Christian hope and comfort, which looks to the “power of the resurrection” in which the “cross of Christ will at last triumph over the devil, flesh, sin, and wicked men.”72 Meditation on the future life, therefore, arises from the believer’s desire for release from the bondage of sin and passage into the kingdom of heaven.73 Consequently, meditation upon and hope for the future life consists, not only of contempt for this life insofar as it is subject to sin and death,74 but also of a fervent expectation that looks toward the future fulfillment of all God’s promises in Christ. It is Christian hope that sustains the Christian life, and reminds us that we “enjoy Christ only as we embrace him clad in his own promises” (Christo fruimur, nisi quatenus eum amplectimur promissionibus suis vestitum).75 Meditation on the future life, as an integral part of the obedience of faith, “calls us to far off things which we have not yet attained,”76 and always goes “hand in hand with hope.”77

70 III.ix.l (OS 4.170). 71 III.ix.3 (OS 4.172–3). 72 III.ix.6 (OS 4.176–7). 73 Comm. Phil 1:23 (CO 52.18); Comm. 2 Cor 5:4 (CO 50.62). 74 Comm. John 12:25 (CO 47.289); Comm. Rom 7:24 (CO 49.135); III.ix.4 (OS 4.174). It is this all-important condition that must always be borne in mind when interpreting Calvin’s language about the contempt which the believer has for this present life. 75 II.ix.3 (OS 3.401). 76 Comm. Heb 11:1 (CO 55.143). 77 Comm. Heb 6:11 (CO 55.76): “[…] veram fidem cum spe semper coniunctam esse.”

128

Part 2

8.2.4 The Christian Use of This World Calvin follows his treatment of meditation on the future life with a complementary treatment of the Christian’s “use of the present life and its helps.”78 That the Christian life consists in a hopeful meditation on the future does not mean that it spurns this life and the good gifts of God, which he allows us to enjoy and use to serve him and our neighbor. Within the limits of the present life, we must rightly use the things of this world and fulfill the vocation to which God has called us. In his consideration of our use of the things of this world, Calvin lays down a principle for their proper use that is consistent with Christian hope and meditation on the future. Let this be our principle: that the use of God’s gifts is not wrongly directed when it is referred to that end to which the Author himself created and destined them for us, since he created them for our good, not our ruin.79

The Christian may properly enjoy to the full this world’s goods, so long as such enjoyment does not become an occasion for self-indulgence and greed.80 The Christian life may involve a genuine use of this world, so long as this use corresponds to the Creator’s intention, and so long as we do not become overly affectionate toward the world.81 Immoderate desire for worldly possessions is inconsistent with the Creator’s intention for his creatures, according to Calvin, and leads to a self-indulgent misuse of God’s good gifts. If our use of this world is guided by the Creator’s intention, then we will acknowledge that what we have has been entrusted to us and that, as his stewards, we must give an account of how we have disposed of this trust. The Scripture decrees that all those things [that we have] were so given to us by the kindness of God, and so destined for our benefit, that they are, as it were, entrusted to us, and we must one day render account of them.82

78 III.x (OS 4.177–8): “Quomodo utendum praesente vita, eiusque adiumentis.” 79 III.x.2 (OS 4.178): “Sit hoc principium, usum donorum Dei non aberrare, quum in eum finem refertur in quem illa nobis author ipse creavit ac destinavit: siquidem in bonum nostrum creavit, non perniciem.” Cf. Serm. Micah 5:1–2 (SC 5.147). 80 See, e.g., III.x.1 (OS 4.177–8); III.x.3–6 (OS 4.178–81). Cf. Serm. Deut 7:1–4 (CO 26.503–4): “Il est vray que nous appellerons bien nostre ce qu’il aura donné: mais c’est à ceste condition, que tousiours cela demeure en sa main, et […] que nous en usions en toute sobrieté et modestie.” There are twin dangers or extremes that Calvin warns against: mistaken strictness or scrupulosity on the one hand, and laxity, greed, and self-indulgence on the other. 81 III.x.4 (OS 4.179); Comm. 1 Cor 7:29 (CO 49.420); Comm. Phil 3:20 (CO 52.55); Col 2:23 (CO 52.116–7). 82 III.x.5 (OS 4.180).

Sanctification or Repentance

129

Calvin insists that, in our use of the good gifts entrusted to us, we must act in conformity to the purpose of their Giver with an attitude that is not affected by an abundance of possessions. Our use of this world’s goods must be wholly guided by the precepts of love and express a stewardship that benefits the cause of those in need. Love toward God is incompatible with an indulgent attitude toward the things of this world; and love for our neighbour is only compatible with a use of this world that promotes his welfare. After having described the proper use of this world and its helps, Calvin concludes his treatise on the Christian life with a comment on the Christian’s sense of vocation. We will not go wrong in our use of the present life if we act in a manner that is consistent with the Creator’s intention. Nor will we go wrong in the Christian life if we fashion our lives in accordance with our calling by God. Finally, this point is to be noted: the Lord bids each one of us in all life’s actions to look at his calling (suam vocationem) […]. Therefore, each individual has his own kind of living assigned to him by the Lord as a sort of sentry post (quasi statio) so that he may not heedlessly wander about throughout life.83

Though Calvin does not often refer explicitly to the subject of the Christian’s vocation, it is an important element in his understanding of how we are to use the present world. When the question is asked, how precisely are we to make a proper use of this life?, Calvin’s answer is in part that we are to dispose of our trust as God’s stewards by serving him within that calling to which we have been assigned, however lowly or exalted it may be.84 No one is excused from the responsibility of serving God and neighbor in the daily actions of life. In this way, our use of the present life will consist, not only in serving the Creator’s purpose and eschewing all immoderate desire toward the world’s goods, but also in heeding the assignment that God gives to us, which is a kind of “sentry post” from which we may not take leave.

83 III.x.6 (OS 4.180–1). Cf. Calvin’s description of our vocation in Comm. 1 Cor 7:20 (CO 49.415): “Vocatio in scripturis est legitima vivendi ratio: habet enim relationem ad Deum vocantem.” 84 Thus, Calvin repudiates that “double Christianity” (duplicem Christianum), which distinguishes between monastic perfection and the common callings of daily life; IV.xiii.11–14 (OS 5.248–52). Combining this idea of calling with the idea that the believer’s life is a “priestly sacrifice” to God, Calvin argues that God is pleased with any “sacrifice” which serves the common good and is in accord with his will, no matter how great or small it might be. Cf., e.g.: Serm. Isa 23:18 (SC 2.332); Serm. 1 Cor 10:31–11:1 (CO 49.695–6); Comm. Luke 10:38 (CO 45.382).

130

Part 2

8.3 Summary Undoubtedly, there is a great deal more that could be said on the subject of sanctification and the Christian life in Calvin’s thought. It was not my purpose in the foregoing, however, to provide a comprehensive exposition of this subject in Calvin’s theology. This chapter aims only to provide a succinct summary of the most important aspects of Calvin’s conception of sanctification, the second benefit of the “twofold grace of God.” The focus was upon Calvin’s distinct conception of sanctification as the second benefit of God’s grace in Christ, especially as it distinguished from the first benefit, justification. For Calvin, sanctification or repentance, the second aspect of the “twofold grace of God,” is produced by faith. Though distinct in nature and conception from justification, sanctification similarly depends upon our union with Christ through the operation of the Spirit and through faith. It also is a free gift of God’s grace in Christ through the power of his Spirit. By sanctification or repentance, Calvin refers to that life-long process and daily advance whereby our sinful condition of willful infidelity and disobedience is restored to its original integrity. Furthermore, in his description of this process, Calvin utilizes a variety of synonymous expressions, the most important of which are “the restoration of the image of God in us,” and the “sanctification” or consecration of our whole life to God and his service. Calvin defines this transformation, restoration, and sanctification, as an inner conversion of our life to God, arising from fear and gratitude toward God and including both the mortification of the flesh and the vivification of the Spirit. The Christian life for Calvin is largely shaped by this process of sanctification. It may be summed up in terms of that daily repentance in which our obedience shows forth increasingly the righteousness of God himself. In his description of the Christian life as a daily repentance and growing conformity to God’s righteousness, Calvin particularly emphasizes the aspects of conformity to the “example” of Christ in his death and resurrection, self-denial and bearing the cross, meditation upon the future life, and the proper use of this world and its helps. In so doing, he gives expression to his understanding of the whole of the Christian life as rooted in the reality of sanctification through the Spirit of Christ. Such sanctification is a not-yet-completed process of bringing about a harmony between God’s holiness and the righteousness of Christian obedience. Sanctification or repentance is the reformation that confirms our free adoption and gracious acceptance by God. Unlike our justification, which represents a definitive, once-for-all gracious judgment and reception into God’s favor, such

Sanctification or Repentance

131

renewal never reaches its completion in this life and is always sustained by an eager hope for the consummation of God’s kingdom in the future.85

85 In this summary, two important themes have not received special attention: Calvin’s repudiation of the idea of Christian perfection, and his fondness for describing the Christian life as a “warfare” with sin. On the subject of Christian perfection, see III.iii.10–15 (OS 4.65–72). On the subject of the Christian life as a perpetual warfare or battle with sin, see Comm. 2 Cor 10:4 (CO 50.114); Comm. 1 Thess 5:8 (CO 52.170); Comm. Acts 1:4 (CO 48.6). The statement in Comm. 2 Cor 10:4 is especially striking: “Militia quidem perpetua est vita hominis christiani. Nam quicunque se Deo in obsequium addicit, nullas unquam indutias habebit a Satana, sed assidua inquietudine vexabitur.” Also cf. Serm. Micah 7:8–9 (SC 5.226): “Tant y a neantmoins qu’il fault que les fideles retiennement ce qui est icy couché, c’est ascavoir que Dieu nous veult exercer en ce monde comme en une bataille continuelle.”

9. The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

In our preceding discussion of Calvin’s understanding of justification and sanctification, the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God,” the question of the relation between them has always lain close to the surface, even though we have largely avoided explicitly addressing it. Our emphasis has been on distinguishing between them by exploring their peculiar nature. This was in keeping with Calvin’s own treatment, which also makes much of the conceptual distinction between them. If this were all that could be said about Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God,” one might easily conclude—with those interpreters who see in the “twofold grace of God” an example of Calvin’s “dialectical juxtaposition” of mutually incompatible and conceptually inconsistent ideas—that he fails to demonstrate their unity and coherence in an adequate manner. This is not all that can be said, however, about Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God.” Throughout his exposition of the grace of God in Christ and its reception through the work of the Spirit, Calvin is keenly aware of the question regarding the relation between justification and sanctification. He endeavours to articulate in various ways the close connection between them, all the while conscious of the difficulties which arise when this connection is misunderstood and the two are confused. For this reason, we must now take up the important and much-disputed question of the relation in Calvin’s theology between these aspects of God’s grace in Christ. Only then will it be possible to reach a conclusion on the nature of the “twofold grace of God” and the relation of its aspects that is consistent with Calvin’s point of view.

9.1 Order of Treatment in the Institutes Calvin’s keen awareness of the question regarding the relation between justification and sanctification is attested by his lengthy explanations in the Institutes as to why he chooses to treat sanctification, the second aspect of the “twofold grace of God,” before justification, the first aspect.1 Though he 1 Calvin follows this order in every edition of the Institutes with the exception of the 1536 or first edition where justification is treated, if at all, in the first chapter on the Law, and repentance is treated in the fifth chapter on the false sacraments. Justification is treated before repen-

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

133

acknowledges that there are important reasons for designating justification the “first” or “principal” benefit of God’s grace in Christ, he decides to treat sanctification first, and—in two of the more interesting and important passages in his Institutes—provides an explanation of his rationale and purpose in adopting this arrangement of the material. Before outlining some of the more important ways in which Calvin articulates the relation between justification and sanctification, it will be useful to begin with a consideration of these passages. For not only do they speak to the question of Calvin’s understanding of this relation, but they also provide an interesting insight into the considerations that influenced his arrangement of the material in the Institutes generally. The importance of these passages warrants our citing them at length. The first passage comes at the beginning of Calvin’s treatment of the “twofold grace of God” in the Institutes, Book III, chapter three, and is remarkable for its thorough account of Calvin’s purpose in his arrangement of the material. Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins—that is, newness of life and free reconciliation—are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith (Iam quum utrunque nobis conferat Christus, et untrunque fide consequamur, vitae scilicet novitatem, et reconciliationem gratuitam). As a consequence, reason and the order of teaching demand that I begin to discuss both at this point (ratio et docendi series postulat ut de utroque hoc loco disserere incipiam). However, our immediate transition will be from faith to repentance. For when this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless, actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated (neque […] separetur) from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith (Poenitentiam vero non modo fidem continue subsequi, sed ex ea nasci) […]. [N]o one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of his past life into the right way, and applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance.2

The second passage likewise comes at a transitional point, at the outset of Calvin’s treatment of justification in the Institutes, Book III, chapter 11. Of regeneration indeed, the second of these gifts, I have said what seemed sufficient. The theme of justification was therefore more lightly touched upon because it was tance in the 1537 Catechism (OS 1.393–5), however, and in the Catechismus Ecclesiae Genevensis of 1545 (OS 2.93–6). This latter order corresponds best with Calvin’s theological appraisal as to which of these is the “principal” benefit of God’s grace in Christ. 2 III.iii.1 (OS 4.55). Most of this statement was added in the final, 1559 edition of the Institutes, an edition characterized by its greater attention to the structure of the whole and the relation of its parts. It does not, however, add much that is new, since the passage in III.xi.1, cited below, was already part of the 1539 edition and makes much the same point. Cf. the French edition, 1560: “[…] la raison et ordre requierent que ie commence a traiter icy des deux.”

134

Part 2

more to the point to understand first how little devoid of good works is the faith through which alone we obtain free righteousness by the mercy of God; and what is the nature of the good works of the saints with which part of this question is concerned. Therefore we must now discuss these matters thoroughly. And we must so discuss them as to bear in mind that this is the main hinge on which religion turns (praecipuum esse sustinendae religionis cardinem), so that we devote the greater attention and care to it. For unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.3

While both of these passages are remarkable for their comprehensive statement of Calvin’s understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification, they are of special interest for their explanation of Calvin’s rationale in choosing to treat sanctification before justification in his Institutes. If these two passages are examined closely and compared, it becomes apparent that, despite their variant phrasing, Calvin’s decision to treat sanctification before justification is based upon two considerations. First, he believes that this order of treatment will convince his readers that justification is by faith alone, and simple pardon. In the first passage, this consideration is referred to explicitly when Calvin says, in explanation of this order of treatment, that “when this topic [i.e., sanctification or regeneration] is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon.”4 But it is also referred to implicitly in the second passage when Calvin notes that this order will aid his readers when the topic of justification is discussed, since a clear picture will have already emerged as to “the nature of the good works of the saints, with which part of this question is concerned.”5 By treating sanctification first, and by providing a clear 3 III.xi.1 (OS 4.182). 4 III.iii.1 (OS 4.5) “[…] melius patebit quomodo sola fide et mera venia iustificetur homo […].” 5 III.xi.1 (OS 4.182): “[…] et qualia sint sanctorum bona opera, in quibus pars huius quaestionis versatur.” According to Calvin, it will be impossible to introduce such works as a partial cause of justification, since his preceding discussion of them compels the conclusion that they are not such as could justify. In that discussion he has argued that there is no sinless perfection in this life, and that, however much we may advance in holiness, we must still rest our hope on God’s mercy if we would have fellowship with him. It should also be noted that, when the nature of these good works is in question, Calvin paradoxically insists that progress or perfection in the Christian life consists largely in the recognition of our imperfection. Cf., e.g., Serm. Eph 1:4–6 (CO 51.273): “Car la perfection des fideles et des enfans de Dieu, c’est de cognoistre combien ils sont encores debiles, non seulement pour prier Dieu qu’il corrige tous leurs defauts, mais qu’il les supporte par sa bonté infinie, et qu’il ne les appelle point à conte en rigueur extreme.” If this is a correct assessment of one of Calvin’s reasons for ordering the material in this fashion, the suggestion that the order is “evaluative,” that is, one that places a higher premium on the importance of repentance vis-à-vis justification, seems implausible. Cf. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 4/1:509–11, and Göhler, Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung, 105, both of whom interpret this order as an indication of Calvin’s primary interest in sanctification. One could with equal plausibility argue that this expla-

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

135

account of its nature, it will no longer be possible to confuse sanctification with justification, or to think that the believer’s repentance, which is born of and follows upon faith, could contribute to his justification. Second, Calvin believes that this order of treatment will also convince his readers that, though justification is not based upon good works, it cannot be separated from its necessary accompaniment, repentance. Accordingly, in the first passage, Calvin cites as a second consideration for adopting this order that it will show how “actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness.”6 And similarly, in the second passage, he states that this order of treatment will enable his readers to understand “how little devoid of good works is the faith through which alone we obtain free righteousness by the mercy of God.”7 Part of his intention, then, in treating sanctification first is to forestall any objection against justification by faith alone that suggests it undermines the importance—or even necessity—of good works, and makes for a careless life.8 Calvin acknowledges in both passages that these two aspects of God’s grace are inseparable, being conferred by Christ and obtained through faith. He also acknowledges that justification is the “first” and sanctification the “second” of these parts. We can only conclude, therefore, that his decision to treat them in this order, and not simultaneously as “reason and the order of teaching” demands, serves a purpose consistent with his understanding of each as well as of their interrelation. However, a further point may be made regarding Calvin’s arrangement of his exposition of the “twofold grace of God” in the Institutes. Though many interpreters have noted the second consideration we have identified, and some the first, few have pursued this issue a step further by asking the nation of his order of treatment indicates Calvin’s concern to emphasize the fundamental significance of justification. Cf. A. Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, 185: “And yet Calvin’s doctrinal delineation, however puzzling may be the sequence of its ideas to him who has been accustomed to the traditionary doctrine of Luther and Melanchthon, as that is found in certain text-books, is determined precisely by a chief regard to the original reformation phenomenon of the subjective consciousness of justification.” So far as I can tell, Ritschl alone has seen the importance of this order for underscoring the importance of justification. 6 III.iii.1 (OS 4.5): “[…] neque tamen a gratuita iustitiae imputatione separetur realis (ut ita loquar) vitae sanctitas.” 7 III.xi.1 (OS 4.182): “[…] et quam otiosa non sit a bonis operibus fides, qua sola gratuitam iustitiam, Dei misericordia obtinemus.” 8 Most interpreters of this order of treatment are agreed on this point. See, e.g., Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 130–3; Stadtland, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung bei Calvin, 129; Wernle, Der Evangelische Glaube, 402; and D.A. Lang, Zwei Calvin-Vorträge: Rechtfertigurig und Heiligung nach Calvin; Calvin und der modern Gemeindegedanke (Gütersloth: C. Bertelsmann, 1911), 25–6. All of these interpreters suggest that Calvin’s interest is polemical. He wishes to meet the Roman Catholic objection that justification by faith alone undermines the necessity of conversion, and to disassociate himself from a “quietistic” appropriation of Luther’s insights.

136

Part 2

question: why would Calvin find these considerations important enough to adopt an arrangement that does not wholly correspond to his theological judgment as to which of these aspects is the “principal” one?9 What is there about these considerations that leads Calvin to choose not to treat justification first, or justification and sanctification simultaneously? If, as seems clear enough, these considerations are not based upon a theological judgment as to which aspect is the principal one, then what considerations would lead Calvin to follow this particular arrangement? The only answer to this question is that here again, as we noted in our earlier analysis of the structure of Calvin’s theology, Calvin’s arrangement of the material serves the purpose of bearing a persuasive witness to the grace of God in Christ. It serves to convince his readers of his specific point of view. Both considerations cited by Calvin in these passages are consistent with this purpose and indicate the extent to which—in his arrangement of the material in the Institutes and in the formal structure of his theology— he is often motivated by factors that, though consistent with his theological perspective, are not themselves theological in nature. These factors are of a rhetorical nature. They attest to Calvin’s interest in the question of how, in his exposition of the Christian faith, he might best lead his readers, step by step, to an acknowledgement of the truth of the Triune God’s redemption in Christ.10

9 The relative priority of justification, while not explicitly indicated in the first passage, is suggested by Calvin’s comment that “repentance not only follows faith, but is also born of faith” (Poenitentiam vero non modo fidem continue subsequi, sed ex ea nasci); III.iii.1 (OS 4.55). Cf. Garcia, “Life in Christ,” 130, 233; and Craig B. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification,” WTJ 64 (2002): 381–85, who argue that Calvin does not treat sanctification as an “effect” of justification or grant a basic “priority” to justification in relation to sanctification. In my judgment, Garcia and Carpenter overstate the extent to which union with Christ “coordinates” its two benefits of justification and sanctification, and do not do justice to the careful way Calvin also maintains the (theological, not temporal) “order” of justification in relation to sanctification. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 405–6, provides a more accurate statement of the careful way Calvin articulates the concomitance and theological subsequence of sanctification in relation to justification. 10 Since these considerations are neither strictly logical nor derived from the nature of the subject at hand, they may be termed “rhetorical.” They lead Calvin to adopt the genre of rhetorical discourse which might best be described as “deliberative,” that is, a discourse directed to a general readership which intends to persuade it to accept the position being espoused. William J. Bouwsma, “Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica,” in Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica, ed. Wilhelm Wueller (Berkeley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1986), 11, makes an apt comment on the rhetorical shaping of Calvin’s arrangement of topics in the Institutes: “The Institutes is not logically ordered; it consists of a series of overlapping topics generally following the order of the Apostle’s Creed. This organization allowed Calvin the flexibility of a variety of persuasive strategies. […] [T]he text is throughout a complex mixture of demonstration, advocacy, and apologetic.” Cf. Quirinus Breen, “John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition,” 116.

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

137

Since Calvin is engaged in a polemic with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and medieval Scholasticism and desires to make the case for his reformational viewpoint, he arranges his exposition in a way that will best persuade his readers. This particular ordering of the material best serves to make two principal points: first, that justification is by faith alone and simple pardon, and second, that repentance is the inseparable and necessary accompaniment of justification.11 Consequently, Calvin’s order of treating the “twofold grace of God” is a rhetorical device that serves his theological understanding of justification and sanctification as corollary, though distinct, aspects of the grace of God in Christ. That Calvin allows such rhetorical considerations to influence his exposition does not betray a weakness in his argument or a failure in dialectics. It conforms rather to his conviction that the Christian faith “cannot be wrested from syllogisms” alone, but depends finally upon a humble acquiescence to the reality of salvation through Christ alone.12

9.2 “Distinction Without Separation” In his substantive articulation of the relation between justification and sanctification, Calvin appropriates the language of the Chalcedonian Christological formula and describes it as one of “distinction without separation.”13 When faced with the question as to how these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ relate to one another, Calvin frequently appeals to this formula. The relation between justification and sanctification is analogous to 11 See Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,” 57, who explicitly cites Calvin’s treatment of justification and repentance as an instance of “rhetorical correlation.” Willis, however, does not specifically deal with Calvin’s position on this issue, but only cites it as an example of such correlation. 12 In III.xx.1 (OS 4.296–7) Calvin sums up the whole of his exposition of our reception of God’s grace in Christ with its twofold benefit as follows: “Hoc postea nobis explicatum est, Dominum ses ultro ac liberaliter in Christo suo exhibere, in quo pro nostra miseria omnem foelicitatem, pro nostra inopia opulentiam offert, in quo caelestes thesauros nobis aperit, ut dilectum Filium suum tota fides nostra intueatur, ab ipso tota nostra expectatio pendeat, in ipso tota spes nostra haereat et acquiescat. Haec quidem secreta est absconditaque philosophia, et quae syllogismis erui non potest.” 13 To this extent, Niesel correctly refers to the “twofold grace of God” as an instance where Calvin’s concentration upon the revelation of God’s grace in Christ is confirmed. Cf. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 248–9. This does not mean that his general interpretation of Calvin’s theology requires no correction and is wholly adequate. Milner, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, 4, argues that the interpretive questions regarding justification and sanctification cannot be resolved by referring, as Niesel does, to God’s revelation in Christ as the controlling center of Calvin’s thought. He offers no indication why he thinks this is so, nor does he indicate from Calvin’s own discussion of the “twofold grace of God” how a better resolution is possible on his own view.

138

Part 2

the relation and union between the divine and human natures in the one Person of Christ. Justification and sanctification are distinct in conception, yet they are inseparable in reality, since they form the simultaneously given and necessarily conjoined benefits of our union with Christ through the operation of his Spirit. Interpreters of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” who charge him with juxtaposing justification and sanctification, do so because of Calvin’s insistence upon the first part of this Christological formula. Justification and sanctification must be conceptually distinguished, lest they be confused and our relation to God adversely affected.14 For example, in his Institutes III.iii.19, Calvin, while acknowledging their inseparability, insists that justification and sanctification must be distinguished in order that the proper object of faith, God’s goodness, might better be comprehended. Repentance is preached in the name of Christ when, through the teaching of the gospel, men hear that all their thoughts, all their inclinations, all their efforts are corrupt and vicious. Accordingly, they must be reborn if they would enter the kingdom of heaven. Forgiveness of sins is preached when men are taught that for them Christ became redemption, righteousness, salvation, and life, by whose name they are freely accounted righteous and innocent in God’s sight. Since both kinds of grace are received by faith, as I have elsewhere proved, still because the proper object of faith is God’s goodness, by which sins are forgiven, it was expedient that it should be carefully distinguished from repentance.15

Justification and repentance denote two quite distinct ways in which God’s grace in Christ affects those who are united with him by faith. Unless the difference between justification and sanctification is carefully maintained, the goodness and mercy of God will be seriously impugned and the assurance of faith will be threatened. The first part of Calvin’s basic formula for relating these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ reflects his judgment that justification and sanctification concern two different questions, and denote two distinct facets of God’s relation to us. Whereas justification concerns the basis or reason for our salvation, sanctification concerns the way in which our life is converted to God.

14 Cf. Ganoczy, Calvin, 100ff; and Bauke, Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins, 76ff. Both Ganoczy and Bauke stress the extent to which Calvin conceptually distinguishes justification and sanctification; both find his effort to show their unity unsatisfactory and, at best, an instance of his general “dialectical” juxtaposition of conflicting themes. 15 III.iii.19 (OS 4.77): “Utraque gratia quum fide apprehendatur (ut alibi demonstratum est) quia tamen proprium fidei obiectum est Dei bonitas qua peccata remittuntur, eam a poenitentia diligenter distingui operaepretium fuit.”

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

139

The difference (distinctio) between faith and repentance must first of all be observed (primum notanda), for some wrongly and stupidly confuse (confundunt) them, saying that repentance is a part of faith. Indeed I admit they cannot be separated (Fateor equidem disiungi non posse), because God does not illuminate anybody with the Spirit of faith, without regenerating him to new life at the same time (quem non simul in novam vitam regeneret). Yet they need to be distinguished (Discerni tamen necesse est) as Paul does in this verse [Acts 20:21]. For repentance is a turning (conversio) around to God, when we compose ourselves and the whole of our lives to his obedience. On the other hand faith is the receiving of the grace which is presented to us in Christ (Fides autem, gratiae nobis in Christo exhibitae receptio est). For the object of the whole of religion is that (Nam huc spectat tota religio) we may serve the Lord, purely devoting ourselves to holiness and righteousness, and, secondly, that we do not seek any part of our salvation from any person than from him, and that we do not search anywhere else than in Christ alone (in solo Christo).16

Justification and repentance correspond, respectively, to the recognition of salvation in Christ alone and to the transformation of our life that is rooted in that recognition. Repentance relates to the regulation of our lives in conformity to God’s righteousness; and justification relates to the reason for our salvation.17 These may no more be confused than may the distinction be overlooked between our status before God’s judgment and the sinful condition of our lives. “For there are implied contrasts between washing and unclean things; sanctification and contamination; justification and guilt.”18 Precisely this contrast is preserved when justification and repentance are distinguished. The strict or normal sense of sanctification differs from that of justification, as the renewal of our lives differs from God’s free pardon and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, whereby we are accorded a new status before God.19 Therefore, Calvin insists upon a basic conceptual difference between justification and sanctification that may not be blurred or diminished. On the one hand, justification contrasts with our guilty status before God’s tribunal, since it means God’s free and irrevocable decision to acquit us despite our unrighteousness and guilt. This decision, comprising both the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is a definitive judgment that excludes the righteousness of works and is received by faith alone. Repentance, on the other hand, contrasts with our sinful condition, 16 Comm. Acts 20:21 (CO 48.462–3). 17 Comm. Rom 4:4 (CO 49.70). 18 Comm. 1 Cor 6:11 (CO 49.394): “[…] sunt enim subaudiendae antitheses ablutionis et sordium, santificationis et pollutionis, iustificationis et reatus.” 19 Comm. Titus 3:7 (CO 52.432): “Si regenerationem accipimus proprio et usitato sensu, videri posset apostolus iustificatos ponere pro regeneratis: atque hoc aliquando significat, sed rarius.” It is striking that Calvin acknowledges an occasional instance where Paul uses justification in a broader sense, since the theological distinction between justification and sanctification is so critical to his own position.

140

Part 2

since it means a life-long and progressive advance wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ, a process in which we are converted to God. This gracious action of Christ’s Spirit, comprising both the mortification of the flesh and the vivification of the Spirit, follows upon faith, and is never definitively effected in this life. To appreciate fully this emphasis of Calvin on the conceptual distinction between these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ, special notice should be given to the theological motive that undergirds it. In the statement from the Institutes cited above, Calvin intimates that his motive for distinguishing between them is his desire to highlight God’s goodness in salvation. Unless justification is carefully distinguished from repentance, God’s goodness and his free grace in Christ will not be properly appreciated, and it will become impossible to insure the believer’s confidence and rest in God’s mercy alone as the sole basis for salvation. Accordingly, Calvin primarily distinguishes between justification and sanctification in order to preserve the gratuitous character of God’s grace in Christ and to provide a basis for the assurance of salvation. If the gospel benefits of justification and sanctification are confused, Calvin is convinced that some credit for righteousness will inevitably be transferred to us, and God’s mercy will be called into question. Since justification is God’s free gift, and since we never possess a perfect righteousness of our own, it is conceptually confused to say that our justification is partially or wholly dependent upon sanctification.20 In this respect, Calvin believes that even Augustine, despite his laudable emphasis upon God’s grace, errs when he “still subsumes grace under sanctification, by which we are reborn in newness of life through the Spirit.”21 The inevitable accompaniment of such conceptual confusion is a Pelagian understanding of our relation to God, wherein repentance is in part the cause for God’s forgiveness.22 Moreover, when these two benefits are confused, not only is God’s free grace called into question, but also our relation to God is misconstrued. When sanctification is made a partial cause for justification, those who are regenerate will become “mercenary-minded by demanding something from God as their due.”23 To avoid any suggestion that our relation to God is of 20 Comm. Rom 4:16 (CO 49.80): “Hinc etiam colligere promptum est, gratiam non pro dono regenerationis, ut quidam imaginantur, sed pro gratuito favore sumi: quia, ut regeneratio nunquam perfecta est, ad placandas animas nunquam sufficeret, nec per se ratam faceret promissionem.” Cf. Comm. Titus 3:7 (CO 52.432); Comm. Acts 20:21 (CO 48.462–3). 21 III.xi.15 (OS 4.200). Cf. Comm. Rom 3:21 (CO 49.58). 22 See, e.g., Comm. Jer 4:14 (CO 37.586–7); Comm. Hag 2:1–5 (CO 44.10); Comm. Gal 5:6 (CO 50.246–7). 23 Comm. Rom 4:4 (CO 49.70). For Calvin, this “mercenary” relation to God is not unrelated to that “mercenary” relation to our neighbour discussed earlier. Calvin distinguishes justification and sanctification, not to undermine good works, but to deprive sanctification of any power to merit salvation. Justification, rightly understood, issues in a genuine repentance, which is

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

141

this kind, Calvin urges that “[w]hen we discuss justification, [we must] hold on to the exclusive adverb [i.e., sola fide].”24 If no proper distinction is made between justification and sanctification, the doctrine of justification by works will inevitably follow, and we will be deprived of the confidence in God’s presence that characterizes his children when they recognize his paternal favor. It is this deprivation of the believer’s confidence before God that particularly disturbs Calvin. Papists overturn the whole doctrine of salvation, by mingling and confounding pardon of sin with repentance (Papistae totam salutis doctrinam evertunt, dum remissionem peccatorum miscent ac confundunt cum poenitentia); and not only they, but others also who wish to be thought more acute. They acknowledge that a man is justified by free grace through Christ, but add, that it is because we are renewed by him. Thus they make our justification to depend partly on the pardon of sins and partly on repentance (Ita partem iustitiae nostrae in remissione peccatorum, partem in poenitentia constituunt). But in this way our consciences will never be pacified, for we are very far from being perfectly renewed. These things must, therefore, be distinguished, so as to be neither separated nor confounded (Sic igitur haec distinguenda sunt ut ne separentur nec misceantur); and thus our salvation will rest on a solid foundation (atque ita solidum nostrae salutis fundamentum retineamus).25

Whenever justification and sanctification are confused, our relation to God either leads to demanding what we think is our due, apart from his mercy and grace, or to despairing of his mercy. Both are forms of ingratitude toward God, and are consequences of having substituted a basis other than God’s mercy for our salvation.26 For Calvin, such ingratitude seriously distorts our relation to God, and betrays the attitude of a mercenary rather than of a child who knows that God’s chief delight is to forgive freely. While Calvin readily admits the inseparability of justification and sanctification, when it comes to the question of the assurance of salvation and of the nature of our relation toward God, he insists upon distinguishing between them. I certainly admit that we are regenerated to newness of life by the grace of Christ, but when it is a question of the assurance of salvation, we ought to be thinking about free adoption alone, which is bound up with the expiation and pardon of sins.27 merit salvation. Justification, rightly understood, issues in a genuine repentance, which is based upon a free conscience and eschews any self-serving relation to God or one’s neighbor. Cf. Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 460–2. 24 Comm. Gal 5:6 (CO 50.246–7). 25 Comm. Isa 59:20 (CO 37.351). 26 Cf. III.iv.3 (OS 4.88–9): “[…] it makes a great difference whether you teach forgiveness of sins as deserved by just and full contrition […] or whether you enjoin him to hunger and thirst after God’s mercy to show him […] where he ought to seek refreshment, rest, and freedom.” 27 Comm. Acts 15:11 (CO 48.352): “Fateor quidem nos Christi gratia regenerari in vitae novitatem: sed ubi de salutis fiducia agitur, sola in mentem venire debet gratuita adoptio, quae cum peccatorum expiatione et venia coniuncta est.”

142

Part 2

Though Calvin emphasizes the conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification for these reasons, he is equally concerned to emphasize the second part of the Christological formula of “distinction without separation.” Though justification and sanctification are conceptually distinct, they are inseparable in reality. Speaking of repentance and faith, Calvin argues that they “are indeed things wholly distinct, and yet not contrary, and ought never to be separated, as some inconsiderately do.”28 Whether Calvin’s understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification amounts to a “dialectical juxtaposition” that fails to account adequately for their unity, as has been suggested, depends upon how this emphasis is interpreted and how important a role it plays in Calvin’s comprehensive conception of the “twofold grace of God.” It is undeniable, however, that Calvin repeatedly and consistently urges that these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ are inseparable in the lives of those who embrace Christ by faith. According to Calvin, there is a necessary and invariable bond between these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ. It is quite inconceivable that those who are justified are not at the same time converted and regenerated by the Spirit of Christ. God works in us the two things at the same time (Imo utrumque simul agit in nobis Deus), so that we are both renewed by repentance and freed from the bondage of sins and also justified by faith and freed from their curse. These are the inseparable gifts of grace and because of the invariable bond between them (Sunt igitur gratiae inseparabiles: et propter individuam coniunctionem) repentance can rightly and fittingly be called the beginning of the way that leads to salvation; but more as an accompaniment than a cause (Sed hoc modo consequentia magis significatur quam causa).29 But these two things, the reconciliation of God with men and repentance, are necessarily connected together (Caeterum, quam vis necessario res sint coniunctae, Dei et hominum reconciliatio et poenitentia), yet repentance ought not to be deemed as the cause of pardon or of reconciliation, as many falsely think who imagine that men deserve pardon because they repent. It is indeed true that God is never propitious to us, except when we turn to him; but the connection (sed coniunctio), as it has been already stated, is not such that repentance is the cause of pardon (non facit ut poenitentia causa sit veniae) […].30

Both of these statements concur in expressing Calvin’s basic conviction that justification and sanctification are two distinct, yet inseparable, benefits of our reception of God’s grace. They are particularly interesting in that, while 28 Comm. Jer 26:17–19 (CO 38.532): “Sunt quidem res distinctae, sed tamen non diversae, nec separari debent, ut quidem parum considerate faciunt.” Calvin then adds, “Nam poenitentia est conversio totius vitae et quasi renovatio: fides autem reos confugere docet ad Dei misericordiam.” 29 Comm. 2 Cor 7:10 (CO 50.90). 30 Comm. Jer 24:7 (CO 38.464).

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

143

retaining Calvin’s insistence on a distinction between them in order to exclude any causal connection between them, they articulate with equal emphasis his corollary conviction that God is only propitious toward those who repent, since repentance is a necessary and invariable accompaniment of justification.31 In his development of this inseparable relation between justification and sanctification, Calvin does not hesitate to take issue with those who improperly interpret the phrase, “faith without works justifies,” and who inadequately treat the relation between justification and sanctification. Commenting upon the proper interpretation of the former phrase, Calvin notes: [I]t still remains true, that faith without works justifies, although this needs prudence and a sound interpretation; for this proposition, that faith without works justifies, is true and yet false, according to the different senses which it bears. The proposition, that faith without works justifies by itself, is false, because faith without works is void […]. Thus faith can be no more separated from works than the sun from its heat; yet faith justifies without works, because works form no reason for our justification […].32

It would be an imprudent interpretation of this proposition to allow that a dead faith could justify, even though it did not express itself through works of love. Not only would it be imprudent, but it also would be impossible.33 31 Any suggestion, such as that of Ganoczy (Calvin, 105), of a temporal distinction between justification and sanctification cannot be sustained against passages such as these, as well as many others. Here Ganoczy’s confessional position and general thesis about the dialectical form and content of Calvin’s theology have misled him. 32 Comm. Ezek 18:14–17 (CO 40.439): “Ita verum illud manet, fidem sine operibus iustificare. Quanquam prudentia et sana interpretatione id indiget. Nam haec propositio, Fidem sine operibus iustificare, est vera et est falsa, secundum diversos sensus: Fides sine operibus, deinde seorsum iustificat, haec propositio est falsa, quia fides sine operibus nulla est. Atqui si particula, Sine operibus, coniungatur cum verbo iustificandi, vera erit propositio: fides ergo non potest iustificare qum est sine operibus, quia est mortua, vel merum figmentum. […] Ita fides nihilo magis poterit avelli ab operibus, quam sol a calore suo: iam tamen fides iustificat sine operibus, quia opera non veniunt in rationem ubi iustificamur.” Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.733): “Voila donc deux sentences où les mots ne sont point changez: il semblera maintenant qu’elles soyent toutes diverses, de dire que nous sommes iustifiez sans oeuvres, et que nous sommes iustifiez non pas sans oeuvres. Mais, c’est à dire, qu’il y a des oeuvres qui toutesfois ne sont point cause de nostre salut pour faire que nous meritions rien devant Dieu et qu’il nous accepte selon nostre dignité: mais c’est d’autant que nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, comme i’ay dit, ne nous apporte point une seule grace et si simple, mais double, c’est à dire, que d’un costé il couvre toutes nos iniquitez et offenses par la pureté de son obeissance, il appaise l’ire de Dieu son Pere par le sacrifice qu’il a une fois offert pour la satisfaction qu’il a faite de toutes nos debtes. Et cependant il nous gouverne tellement par son sainct Esprit qui repose sur luy […].” 33 Calvin expresses his position briefly when he notes that “it is faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.” Cf. Acta Synodi Tridentinae Cum Antidoto, 1547 (CO 7.477): “Fides ergo sola est quae iustificet: fides tamen quae iustificat, non est sola. Quemadmodum solis calor solus est qui terram calefaciat: non tamen idem in sole est solus, quia perpetuo coniunctus est cum splendore.” Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.733): “[…] notons que nous sommes iustifiez et non pas sans oeuvres, et toutefois nous sommes iustifiez sans oeuvres.”

144

Part 2

This interpretation reflects an inadequate conception of the relation between justification and sanctification, since it allows a separation between them. Only a living faith may be said to justify us. Only those indwelt by the Spirit of Christ and consecrated to the Lord, having hearts framed to obedience to the law, may be said to have been forgiven and accounted righteous by God.34 Because there is no real separation between justification and sanctification, there is in us, besides that righteousness reckoned to us by a free act of reconciliation, a genuine righteousness that is imparted to us when we are renewed by the Spirit.35 We participate in the holiness of Christ, Calvin argues, “not by imputation alone, for in that respect he [Christ] is said to have been made to us righteousness; but he is also said to have been made to us sanctification […] that we may be renewed to true holiness by his Spirit.”36 Accordingly, spiritual righteousness consists of two parts, which correspond to the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God,” one being free reconciliation through the non-imputation of sins, and the other being inward reformation unto obedience by the Spirit.37 The former of these parts is never a “single, unaccompanied gift, for since we are clothed with the righteousness of the Son, we are reconciled to God, and renewed by the power of the Spirit to holiness.”38 Only when this is acknowledged, and the inseparable relation between these gifts maintained, is it possible to interpret justification by faith alone in such a way as not to give way to sin39 or allowing the “vain pretence” of faith without newness of life.40 This is what Calvin intends to teach, then, when he utilizes the formula “distinction without separation” in his exposition of the relation between Calvin often uses, as should be evident, the metaphor of the relation between the sun and its heat or light to emphasize the invariable and necessary relation between justification and sanctification. 34 III.xiv.9 (OS 4.228). 35 Comm. Heb 7:1 (CO 55.82): “[…] iustitiam nobis communicat, partim dum efficit ut gratuita reconciliatione iusti censeamur, partim dum nos renovat spiritu suo, ut pie sancteque vivamus. Ergo rex iustitiae dicitur ab effectu, quia in omnes suos iustitiam diffundit.” 36 Comm. John 17:19 (CO 47.385). 37 Comm. John 1:17 (CO 47.18–9): “[…] spiritualem iustitiam […] Eius autem duae sunt partes, quod gratis se nobis Deus reconciliat, peccata non imputando: et quod legem suam cordibus insculpit, ac intus per spiritum suum in illius obedientiam homines reformat.” 38 Comm. Rom 6:23 (CO 49.119): “Atque id quoque donum non unum, nec simplex esse: nam filii iustitia induti Deo reconciliamur et spiritus virtute in sanctitatem regeneramur.” 39 Comm. Ezek 11:19, 20 (CO 40.250): “Ergo quoties agitur de salute nostra, veniant haec duo nobis in memoriam, non posse nos censeri Dei filios nisi gratis peccata nostra expiet, atque ita se nobis reconciliet: deinde nisi etiam regat nos suo spiritu. Iam tenendum est, non esse quae Deu coniunxit ab homine separanda. Qui igitur freti indulgentia Dei permittunt sibi peccandi licentiam, discerpunt eius foedus, et impie lacerant.” 40 Comm. 1 John 3:6 (CO 55.334): “[…] sciamus falso praetexi Christi fidem et notitiam absque vitae novitate. Nusquam enim otiosus est Christus, ubi regnat: sed spiritus sui virtutem exserit.”

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

145

justification and sanctification: these are two conceptually distinct, yet inseparable, benefits of our reception of God’s grace in Christ. That Calvin appropriates this Christological formula in order to interpret this relation attests his conviction that both of these benefits correspond to God’s grace in Christ. The integral relation between them depends finally upon the unity of our redemption through Christ in the power of his Spirit. The most important clue, therefore, to Calvin’s understanding of this formula and of the unity between justification and sanctification is his conception of its Christological and pneumatological basis. It remains for us to consider how Calvin relates these two aspects of the “twofold grace of God” directly to the person and work of Christ as the basis for their unity. Only then will it be possible to comprehend fully what he means when he describes them as distinct, yet inseparable benefits of God’s grace.

9.3 Christ’s Twofold Office According to Calvin, both justification and sanctification, which together comprise the sum of the gospel, are conferred upon us by Christ and are the twofold fruit of his “office” as Mediator. In his commentary on Colossians 1:22, Calvin provides us with a summary statement of his understanding of these gifts, which are inseparably conferred upon us by Christ through the Spirit: For the entire blessing of redemption consists mainly in these two things: remission of sins and spiritual regeneration. What he has already said was great, that righteousness has been procured for us by the death of Christ, so that, our sins being abolished, we are acceptable to God. Now, however, he teaches us that there is in addition to this another benefit equally great, the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which we are reformed to the image of God. And this is a passage worthy of note, that free righteousness is not conferred upon us in Christ without our being at the same time regenerated by the Spirit to the obedience of righteousness; as he teaches elsewhere that Christ is made to us righteousness and sanctification. The former we obtain by free acceptance, and the latter by the gift of the Holy Spirit, when we are made new men. And there is an inseparable connection between these two graces.41

Interestingly, in this statement Calvin terms sanctification “equally as great” a benefit as justification. Ordinarily, as we have seen, justification is described as the “first” or “principal” of the two aspects of God’s grace in 41 Comm. Col 1:22 (CO 52.90–1): “Nam his duobus membris praecipue constat totum redemptionis beneficium: peccatorum remissione, et regeneratione spirituali […]. Sed nunc aliud accedere aeque praeclarum docet, nempe spiritus sancti donationem, qua reformamur ad imaginem Dei […] non conferri nobis gratuitam iustitiam in Christo, quin spiritu etiam regeneremur in oboedientium iustitiae […]. Utriusque autem gratiae individuus est nexus.”

146

Part 2

Christ.42 Nonetheless, this statement conforms to Calvin’s consistent understanding of Christ’s twofold “office” in redemption, and to his claim that our incorporation into him affords us a twofold benefit. Christ’s mediatorial office consists of two parts: first, he freely pardons our sins and adopts us as his members by the sacrifice of his death; and second, by the working of his Spirit, he regenerates us so “that our life may testify that it is no lie for us to call him [God] Father.”43 Both of these constitute the inseparable aspects of Christ’s work, and together form a complete account of how salvation must be laid hold of in Christ: [The] gospel will be mutilated and corrupted if it does not consist of these two parts, i.e., unless men are taught that they are reconciled to God through Christ by the free imputation of righteousness, and that they are fashioned again in newness of life by the Spirit of regeneration.44

In the person and work of Christ himself, we find the common source for our free adoption and acceptance as God’s children, and our sanctification through the operation of his Spirit.45 In his description of Christ’s twofold office in justification and sanctification, Calvin is at pains to insist that Christ performs both simultaneously and inseparably. However necessary may be the conceptual distinction between them, this does not mitigate their integral unity within the scope of Christ’s redemptive work. According to Calvin, it is the “name of Christ” that must be placed before us when we consider “the only foundation of faith and repentance.”46 Both justification and sanctification belong to 42 Cf. Comm. John 3:16 (CO 47.65): “Certum quidem est haec duo semper coniuncta esse, sed quia hic de salutis certitudine agitur, tenenda praecipue est haec ratio, nos ideo vivere, quia Deus peccata non imputando gratis nos amat.” 43 Comm. Matt 3:2 (CO 45.112). Ultimately, the unity and integrity of the “twofold grace of God” depends, for Calvin, upon the unity and integrity of the Triune God’s redeeming action. One reason I have stressed the Trinitarian basis of Calvin’s understanding of redemption is that it forms Calvin’s answer to the question of the relation of justification and sanctification. The Son can no more be separated from the Father than the Spirit can be separated from the Son. Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.726): “Car par la foy nous recevons le S. Esprit, d’autant que Iesus Christ n’en peut estre separé. Il faut donc que nous soyons renouvellez en croyant à Dieu, car nous apprehendons sa vertu, laquelle il nous offre de nous communiquer en son Fils.” Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.729): “Nous avons desia dit, que par la foy nous recevons l’eprit, de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ. Or il ne peut estre separé de son Esprit.” 44 Comm. Acts 5:31 (CO 48.111–2). 45 Cf. Jonathan H. Rainbow, “Double Grace: John Calvin’s View of the Relationship of Justification and Sanctification,” ExAud 5 (1989): 103: “Sanctification does not come, as it were, from justification; it comes, like justification, straight from the cross. The double grace of salvation is integrated, not by allowing sanctification to encroach on justification, nor by relegating sanctification to second fiddle status, but by tracing both to Jesus Christ. They are integrated Christologically.” 46 Comm. Acts 2:38 (CO 48.52): “[…] Christi nomen in medium proponitur, tanquam unicum fidei ac poenitentiae fundamentum.”

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

147

Christ’s peculiar office, and we may be sure that he never justifies without at the same time renewing us: The truth is rather that believers are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration. Indeed, we are justified for this very purpose, that we may afterwards worship God in purity of life. Christ washes us by his blood, and renders God propitious to us by his expiation, by making us partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life.47

When Christ cleanses us, he does so by a method of cleansing that is twofold (duplex): […] first, that Christ, by daily destroying our sins, for which he once made atonement by his blood, offers and presents us, pure and righteous, in the sight of the Father; and secondly, that mortifying the desires of the flesh by his Spirit, he reforms us in sanctity.48

This twofold office and cleansing of Christ represents the whole substance of the gospel, and affords us a “splendid account of the office of Christ,” who reigns for the salvation of his people “when he brings his own to repentance and reconciles them to God by the forgiveness of sins.”49 It is not surprising that, in connection with his exposition of the twofold office of Christ in redemption, Calvin is fond of referring to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 1:30, that Christ “has been made for us righteousness and sanctification.” This statement captures the thrust of Calvin’s own conception of the integral relation between justification and sanctification, as they jointly find their point of reference in Christ’s work of redemption. In his commentary on this passage, Calvin notes that it demonstrates how inseparable justification and sanctification are, by virtue of their common source in Christ’s person and work: From this we also gather that we cannot be justified freely by faith alone, if we do not at the same time (simul) live in holiness. For those gifts of grace go together as if tied by an inseparable bond, so that if anyone tries to separate them, he is, in a sense, tearing Christ to pieces (Istae enim gratiae quasi individuo nexu cohaerent: ut qui eas separare nititur, Christum quo dammodo discerpat). Accordingly, let the man who aims at being justified by God’s free goodness through Christ take note that this cannot possibly be done, unless at the same time he lays hold of him for sanctification (hoc non posse quin simul in sanctificationem eum apprehendat); in other words, he must be born anew by his Spirit to blamelessness and purity of life.50 47 Comm. Rom 6:2 (CO 49.104). 48 Comm. Acts 15:9 (CO 48.347): “Duplex qutem est purgandi modus, quod Christus peccata nostra, quae semel sanguine suo expiavit, quotidie delendo, puros iustosque in patris conspectum nos offert ac sistit: deinde, quod carnis cupiditates spiritu suo mortificans nos in sanctitatem reformat.” 49 Comm. Acts 5:31 (CO 48.111). 50 Comm. 1 Cor 1:30 (CO 49.331): “Istae enim gratiae quasi individuo nexu cohaerent: ut qui eas separare nititur, Christum quodammodo discerpat […] hoc non posse quin simul in sancti-

148

Part 2

Since these gifts belong inseparably to Christ, and since they are invariably conjoined in our reception of God’s grace in him, it must be said that “those who imagine that Christ bestows free justification upon us without imparting newness of life shamefully rend Christ asunder […].”51 While Calvin acknowledges the common criticism of free justification— that it allows us to be confident of God’s favor while living an unrepentant life—his answer to this criticism lies, not in confusing it with sanctification, but in referring us to Christ who was made for us both righteousness and sanctification. For “free remission of sins cannot be separated from the Spirit of regeneration,” as this criticism supposes; this would be “as it were, to rend Christ asunder.”52 And so Calvin urges, “Let believers learn to embrace him [Christ], not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both these purposes, that they may not rend him asunder by their own mutilated faith.”53

9.4 Summary It should be evident why Calvin chooses, as his basic formula for summarizing the relation between justification and sanctification, the Christological formula of “distinction without separation.” This formula reminds us not only that there are important theological reasons why these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ must be conceptually distinguished, but also that they remain inseparably joined by virtue of their common foundation in Christ’s redemptive work through the power of his Spirit. Whether this formula betrays Calvin’s penchant for dialectically juxtaposing conceptually distinct ideas remains to be determined. Such a determination depends upon one’s judgment as to whether Calvin makes his case in arguing both for concepficationem eum apprehendat.” Calvin goes on in this passage to caution against drawing the conclusion from this conjunction that Christ’s two offices are indistinguishable. Cf. Serm. Matt 3:1–2 (CO 46.496–7): “Iesus Christ nous est donné […] pour iustice, et sanctification […]. Ainsi donc non sans cause i’ay dit que la foy non seulement apprehende que Dieu nous est pitoyable, et qu’il nous veut recevoir à merci, mais quant et quant qu’il nous veut gouverner, et qu’il veut tellement reformer la corruption de nostre nature, que son Esprit nous gouverne en toute iustice.” Serm. Matt 3:1–2 (CO.46.495): “Il y a deux choses qui sont requises à nostre salut: L’une, que nous cognoissions que Dieu veut ensevelir nos fautes, etc. Or la foy apprehende encore une autre chose en Iesus Christ: c’est qu’ il nous apporte l’Esprit de renouvellement.” 51 Comm. Rom 6:1 (CO 49.103): “[…] perperam eos Christum discerpere, qui gratuitam ab ipso iustitiam nobis donari fingunt absque vitae novitate.” 52 Comm. Rom 8:9 (CO 49.144): “[…] gratuitam peccatorum remissionem a spiritu regenerationis non posse disiungi: quia hoc esset quasi Christum discerpere.” Cf. Rom 8:3 (CO 49.137–8). 53 Comm. Rom 8:13 (CO 49.147): “Discant ergo fideles non in iustitiam modo, sed in sanctificationem quoque amplecti, sicuti in utrumque finem nobis datus est, ne mutila sua fide eum lacerent.”

The Relation of Justification and Sanctification

149

tually distinguishing and for inseparably joining justification and sanctification. Though this question will be addressed directly in subsequent chapters, here it need only be noted that Calvin’s use and interpretation of this formula confirm our previous discussion of his rationale in treating sanctification before justification in his Institutes. Both in his decision to arrange his treatment of the “twofold grace of God” in this manner and in his use of this Christological formula, Calvin wishes to emphasize that justification and sanctification are distinct, yet inseparable. However significant may be the conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification, they are corollary and inseparable benefits, necessarily and invariably conjoined, of the singular gracious action of God toward us in Christ through the operation of his Spirit.

10. Union with Christ and the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

In our survey of the literature on Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God,” reference was made to the question whether there is a tension, or even a contradiction, between Calvin’s juridical conception of justification and his conception of our union with Christ by which we are transformed through the indwelling Spirit.1 Some interpreters have suggested that Calvin’s insistence upon understanding justification as a gracious judgment of God, consisting of the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is incompatible with his parallel insistence that Christ himself dwells in us and regenerates us by the working of his Spirit. Since this suggestion really amounts to another form of the criticism that Calvin inadequately relates justification and sanctification, it is fitting that we should consider it at this point in order to develop further Calvin’s understanding of this relation.

10.1 The Alleged Tension in Calvin’s Theology Perhaps the most vigorous proponent of the claim that there is a tension between Calvin’s conception of union with Christ and his juridical conception of justification is Willy Lüttge. In his interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of justification, Lüttge argues that Calvin identifies it with the forgiveness of sins and that his forensic formulae, particularly his use of the terminology of imputation, are incompatible with his view of the believer’s living or “mystical” union with Christ.2 Consequently, in his treatment of 1 Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 180–7, considers this question in some detail. Curiously, he defends Calvin against the criticism that these emphases are contradictory in this section, but then argues in his conclusion (385) that Calvin’s “idea of imputed righteousness seems superfluous, for in the coalescence [i.e. between Christ and the believer] we would partake of the righteousness of Christ and therefore not need imputation of it.” As I hope to show, this conclusion does not meet Calvin’s reasons for continuing to insist upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification. 2 Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins, 27: “Als lebendige Gemeinschaft mit Gott ist sie die religiöse Wiedergeburt des Menschen. Und um diese Wirklichkeit kräftig hervortreten zu lassen, greift Calvin zu Wendungen, die ihn in Widerspruch zu seinen forensischen Formeln bringen.” It is interesting that this judgment concerns Calvin’s position in the 1536 edition of the Institutes, so

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

151

Calvin’s discussion of our incorporation into Christ through faith (Institutes III.xi), Lüttge believes that, when Calvin provides his forensic definition of justification, he introduces a completely different line of thought: After these general observations that are set forth in the first chapter on justification in the Institutes (III.xi.11), the conceptual definitions in the second paragraph (III.xi.12) exhibit a completely different stamp. There the justified person is described as follows: “He is said to be justified in God’s sight who is both reckoned righteous in God’s judgment and has been accepted on account of his righteousness” (qui iudicio dei et censetur iustus et acceptus est ob suam iustitiam).3

Though Lüttge acknowledges that Calvin uses imputation in two ways, to designate both the non-imputation or forgiveness of sins and the positive application of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, he finds only the first use acceptable, and argues that Calvin fails to show the compatibility of the second use with the first or with his doctrine of our union with Christ.4 Calvin simply allows these two senses of imputation to stand, side by side, and fails to show how they are to be related. Consequently, there is a tension in Calvin’s thought between his usual identification of justification with the forgiveness of sins, which is inseparable from renewal through union with Christ, and his stress upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. According to Lüttge, the only resolution of this tension that remains true to Calvin’s thought is one that relegates Calvin’s forensic formulation of the doctrine of justification to a secondary status. Unlike the doctrine of justification in later Reformed orthodoxy, this forensic formulation is not fundamental to Calvin’s viewpoint, and Calvin preserves the integral relation between the forgiveness of sins and moral newness of life.5 For Lüttge this interpretation best accords with Calvin’s general viewpoint and allows a resolution of what appears to be an insuperable contradiction. Unlike interpreters who assert that Calvin simply juxtaposes two conceptually incomthat Lüttge finds this incompatibility throughout all the various editions, beginning with the first. Cf. Ganoczy, Calvin, 100: “Calvin oppose systématiquement ‘venia’ à ‘habitus’, ‘gratuita acceptio’ à ‘iustitia infusa’, ‘grâce’ à ‘vertu’, ‘faveur gratuite’ à ‘qualité’, comme il a toujour opposé dialectiquement ce qui etait pour lui transcendence à ce qu’il considérait comme purement humain.” 3 Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins, 44 (translation mine). 4 Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins, 43: “Beides steht durchaus nebeneinander; doch wehren die Formeln nicht scharf genug dem Verdacht, als sei hier erst die eigentliche positive Gnade gegeben […].” 5 See Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins, 48, 84, 89 passim, where Lüttge argues that later Reformed orthodoxy was responsible for introducing a purely forensic view of justification, failing thereby to see how Calvin subordinates the notion of imputation to our mystical union with Christ and the transformation of our existence. Lüttge’s analysis transparently reflects the influence of nineteenth century liberalism, with its emphasis upon religious experience and concomitant disdain for the idea of justification as a definitive divine judgment effected for us by Christ. Without an experiential correlate, specifically a moral transformation, justification is meaningless.

152

Part 2

patible ideas in a dialectical fashion, Lüttge subordinates Calvin’s forensic formulae to his conception of our mystical union with Christ and concludes that, for Calvin, the forgiveness of sins is not merely accompanied by but depends upon sanctification. Before determining whether Lüttge’s interpretation is valid, it should be noted that several interpreters of Calvin’s theology have responded to it and provided alternative accounts of the relation between Calvin’s forensic conception of justification and his view of our renewing union with Christ.6 The response of Emile Doumerge is especially noteworthy since it indicates the difficulty in accurately interpreting Calvin’s understanding of this relation. In his response to Lüttge, Doumerge suggests that this alleged tension is easily resolved if we distinguish between the cause and the means of justification: the cause of our justification is the sacrifice of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness, while the means by which this imputed righteousness becomes ours is mystical union with Christ, in consequence of which we are regenerated.7 The problem with Doumerge’s proposed solution is that, as was true of Lüttge’s, it assumes that justification comprises both the themes of imputation and of sanctification through union with Christ. The tension that allegedly exists between these emphases in Calvin’s theology is removed by the expedient of denying any conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. These two benefits of the “twofold grace of God” are compatible simply because they are neither formally nor conceptually distinct.8 6 For a general survey of the discussion of Calvin’s forensic view of justification in relation to his doctrine of union with Christ, see William Borden Evans, “Imputation and Impartation: The Problem of Union with Christ in Nineteenth Century American Reformed Theology,” Ph.D. diss. (Vanderbilt University, 1996), 8–20. As the title of his dissertation indicates, Evans believes that, unlike Calvin who coordinated and united justification with sanctification under the theme of union with Christ, later Calvinism tended to separate them. Evans also criticizes my dissertation’s account of this issue, since he thinks I account for the inseparability of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s thought by appealing to the saving work of the Triune God rather than to the unitive theme of union with Christ. On this point, I believe Evans has misread my argument. The inseparability of justification and sanctification is rooted not only in the saving work of the Triune God, but also in the unity of Christ’s redemptive office and the believer’s union with him through the bond of the Holy Spirit. 7 Doumerge, Calvin, 4.275: “Ainsi il y a une cause et un moyen. La cause de notre justification est le sacrifice du Christ, dont la justice nous est imputées—Le moyen, par lequel cette justice qui nous est imputée devient nôtre, c’est l’union mystique avec Christ, union dont le résultat est de nous régénérer. Où est la contradiction?” 8 Cf. Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 182, who rightly notes: “One may with reason ask, why imputation is necessary if faith effects a union between Christ and the believer, or, what the mystical union adds to the situation if one is already justified by imputation. Doumerge commits here and elsewhere the error which Calvin was so anxious to avoid, namely, that of confusing (formally) justification and regeneration.” That Doumerge commits this error on more than one occasion is evident from the following comment, Calvin, 4.270–1: “[…] dans la justification par la

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

153

If Doumerge’s resolution of this question were correct, Calvin’s insistence upon distinguishing between, without separating, these aspects of God’s grace in Christ would no longer be honored. Furthermore, as was true of Lüttge, Doumerge would seem to have made justification to depend causally upon sanctification. Unlike Doumerge, other interpreters of Calvin have argued that it is possible to preserve both his conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification, and his insistence that both result from our union with Christ through the operation of his Spirit and through faith.9 Though these interpreters differ in several respects, they concur in arguing that a resolution of this question depends upon a careful analysis of Calvin’s understanding of the nature of our union with Christ and particularly of how justification forms one of its benefits. In the analyses of S. Dee, W. Kolfhaus, and F. Wendel, it has been noted that, while Calvin admits an inseparable relation between justification and union with Christ, he also insists that this relation is not causal, nor does it imply any conceptually confused identification of them. Dee acknowledges that justification is “organically” related to mystical union with Christ, yet he denies that this mitigates Calvin’s forensic formulation of justification, since the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us on the basis of this union, remains an inherent property of his person and not of ours.10 When our justification is at issue, Calvin clearly distinguishes between Christ’s perfect righteousness, on the basis of which we may stand before God’s judgment, and that imperfect righteousness wrought in us through the operation of the Spirit, which can in no wise contribute to our justification.11 Similarly, Kolfhaus and Wendel argue that, while these two benefits of our foi, Calvin comprend non pas un élément, mais deux; […] à l’attribution, vient se joindre l’élément moral, la régénération ou la sanctification.” It should be said in Doumerge’s defense, however, that Calvin does distinguish between the “cause” and the “means” of our salvation (not justification alone), and speaks of sanctification as the necessary accompaniment of justification. This may have misled Doumerge, even though, as we shall see at a later point, Calvin expressly designates justification the “cause” and sanctification the “means.” Nowhere, so far as I have been able to determine, does Calvin speak simply of regeneration or sanctification as the “means” of justification. 9 None of them finds convincing Lüttge’s specific claim that the two aspects of justification, forgiveness and imputation, are incompatible. Cf., e.g., Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 182: “I submit that the two are quite in harmony; for, in order for the sinner to be justified, to be received with favor by God, his guilt must first be overlooked, and then he must receive certain credentials to come before God.” 10 Dee, Het Geloofsbegrip van Calvijn, 187ff, 191. 11 Het Geloofsbegrip van Calvijn, 193: “De fides wordt oorzaak van de union mystica, de unio mystica van de zekerheid der zondenvergiffenis. In werkelijkheid echter vallen alle drie saam en ligt de grond der justificatio niet in, maar buiten ons, in Christus, in Gods beloften, in Zijn barmhartigheid.”

154

Part 2

union with Christ are two aspects of the same gracious action of God, they remain conceptually distinct, such that our justification never causally depends upon our sanctification.12 According to Kolfhaus, justification and union with Christ are inseparable parts of one action of God, neither of which precedes or follows the other in time nor depends causally upon the other.13 Accordingly, Lüttge’s resolution presumes a tension which does not exist, since it misconstrues Calvin’s understanding of our union with Christ and fails to retain the distinct, yet inseparable, relation between justification and sanctification through union with Christ.14

10.2 A Test Case: Calvin’s Polemic with Osiander From the positions of these interpreters, it becomes clear that a resolution of the alleged incompatibility between Calvin’s forensic conception of justification and his doctrine of the believer’s intimate union with Christ finally depends upon an adequate assessment of what is meant by union with Christ. As Dee points out, since Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ does not mean a mingling of his essence with ours, it need not be construed to exclude a forensic conception of justification with its emphasis upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.15 Therefore, to determine whether there is a tension between Calvin’s juridical conception of justification and his doctrine of union with Christ, Calvin’s understanding of this union must be further explored, particularly in terms of its connection with justification. Fortunately, for this purpose there is in Calvin’s writings an interesting and important example of his own reflection upon the nature of this union and its relation to justification: his polemic with the Lutheran theologian, Osiander.16 In this polemic with Osiander, Calvin had occasion to consider 12 Wendel, Calvin, 258: “[…] union with Christ cannot be regarded as the cause of the imputation of righteousness. Imputation and union with Christ are, rather, two inseparable aspects of one and the same divine grace: the one is not possible without the other.” Cf. Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin, 60ff. 13 Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin, 60, suggests that, in this respect, Calvin’s conception differs from that of later Calvinism with its development of a well-defined ordo salutis: “Rechtfertigung und Einpflanzung stehen nicht in einem Kausal verhältnis zueinander, sondern bezeichnen eine und dieselbe Tat Gottes, bei der von einem Vorher oder Nachher keine Rede ist. Es war ein Unglück für die Predigt und seelsorgerliche Arbeit, als der spätere Calvinismus hier ein zeitliches Verhältnis feststellen wollte.” Whether later Calvinism’s ordo salutis allows for the kind of temporal sequence Kolfhaus asserts is disputable. 14 See Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft, 58, and Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 184ff. 15 Dee, Het Geloofsbegrip van Calvijn, 191. Cf. Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 184–7. 16 For discussions of Osiander’s position on justification and Calvin’s polemic against it, see E. Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Vorassetzung (Tübingen, 1919); W. Niesel, “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre,” ZKG 46 (1927): 410–30;

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

155

carefully the relation between union with Christ and justification, and to disassociate his understanding of this union from a doctrine of an essential union between Christ and the believer. For this reason, a summary of this polemic will assist in determining whether there is incompatibility between union with Christ and the imputation of his righteousness in justification. Calvin’s refutation of the doctrine of Osiander, which is largely found in his Institutes III.xi.5–12, begins with an account of Osiander’s conception of justification. As Calvin understands him, Osiander teaches that we possess an “essential righteousness” that is imparted to us through the transfusion of the divine essence.17 Though Calvin admits the correctness of Osiander’s emphasis upon union with Christ, he maintains that Osiander misconceives the nature of this union when he mixes Christ’s essence with ours, and when he teaches that Christ is “our righteousness because he is eternal God, the source of righteousness, and the very righteousness of God.”18 Rather than teaching that we are united with Christ, the Mediator, through the operation and indwelling of his Spirit, Osiander falsely teaches an immediate union of our essence with that of Christ and concludes that “we are substantially righteous in God by the infusion both of his essence and his quality.”19 In so doing, Osiander shows himself unsatisfied “with the righteousness which has been acquired for us by Christ’s obedience and sacrificial death.”20 Furthermore, he thereby denies that we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ, procured for us through his death and resurrection. He affirms, to the contrary, […] that to be justified is not only to be reconciled to God through free pardon but also to be made righteous, and righteousness is not a free imputation but the holiness and uprightness that the essence of God, dwelling in us, inspires.21 Garcia, “Life in Christ,” 175–223; idem, “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander, and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model,” WTJ 68 (2006): 219–51; and Julie Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander and Participation in God,” IJST 6/2 (2004): 169–84. Garcia’s article (228–30) provides a helpful identification of the most important sources for an understanding of Osiander’s theology, including several that appeal to Osiander’s view as a bridge from Lutheranism to Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic views of justification. 17 III.xi.5 (OS 4.185–6): “[…] essentiam Dei in homines transfundere apperteret.” 18 III.xi.5 (OS 4.186): “Dicit nos unum esse cum Christo. Fatemur: interea negamus misceri Christi essentiam cum nostra. Deinde perperam hoc principium trahi dicimus ad illas eius praestigias: Christum nobis esse iustitiam, quia Deus est aeternus, fons iustitiae, ipsaque Dei iustitia.” 19 III.xi.5 (OS 4.186): “[…] nos substantialiter in Deo iustos esse tam essentia quam qualitate infusa.” 20 III.xi.5 (OS 4.186). Cf. III.xi.8 (OS 4.189), where Calvin refutes Osiander’s claim that, “[…] since Christ is God and man, he is made righteousness for us with respect to his divine nature, not his human nature.” According to Calvin, this strips the Mediator of his justifying office, which is located in the “dispensation enjoined upon him” and “the power of his death and resurrection.” 21 III.xi.6 (OS 4.187): “[…] ut iustificari sit non solum reconciliari Deo gratuita venia, sed etiam iustos effici: ut iustitia sit non gratuita imputatio, sed sanctitas, et integritas quam Dei

156

Part 2

With his understanding of our essential union with Christ, Osiander repudiates any notion of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification, and substitutes for it the notion that we are justified by being made righteous. In his response to this conception of Osiander, Calvin presents a comprehensive account of his own understanding of our union with Christ, and of how we are to understand justification and sanctification as its two distinct, yet inseparable, benefits. He also provides a clear account as to why he finds Osiander’s doctrine objectionable when it fails to distinguish between these benefits. What we find in Calvin’s polemic with Osiander is an illuminating treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” and of his understanding of the relation of its aspects. In particular, we find Calvin expounding his own view of the compatibility between justification through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and a doctrine of our intimate union with Christ, which effects a genuine, albeit partial, righteousness in the lives of believers. Consequently, Calvin’s response to Osiander provides a good illustration of his whole conception of our reception of God’s grace in Christ and its twofold benefit. The opening part of Calvin’s refutation of Osiander amounts to the claim that Osiander has simply confused justification, or the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, with sanctification. In the entire dispute between himself and Osiander, Calvin notes, the question is whether Osiander is correct when he extends the meaning of the noun, “righteousness” and the verb “to justify” in two different directions (nomen iustitiae et verbum iustificandi) to mean both free pardon and making righteous.22 For Calvin, this extension in meaning is impermissible. Osiander’s pur pose in so extending the meaning of “righteousness” and “to justify,” his desire to affirm that those whom God justifies are also renewed in right eousness, may easily be achieved without resorting to such conceptual confusion. Osiander’s objection to a juridical view of justification is “ex ceedingly easy to answer: as Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely, righteousness and sanctification.”23 Since those whom God receives and essentia in nobis residens inspirat.” Niesel, in “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre,” points out that Osiander also spoke of an imputed righteousness, but that this was not constitutive of the whole of our justification. The crucial point for Osiander was that we are made just, and that this is integral to our justification. 22 III.xi.6 (OS 4.187): “Nam in hac tota disputatione nomen iustitiae et verbum iustificandi ad duas partes extendit, ut iustificari sit non solum reconciliari Deo gratuita venia, sed etiam iustos effici: ut iustitia sit non gratuita imputatio, sed sanctitas et integritas quam Dei essentia in nobis residens inspirat.” 23 III.xi.6 (OS 4.187): “Responsio perquam facilis est: sicut non potest discerpi Christi in partes, ita inseparabilia esse haec duo, quae simul et coniunctum in ipso percipimus, iustitiam et sanctificationem.”

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

157

adopts as his children are remade to his own image by the Spirit of adoption, Calvin readily embraces as his own Osiander’s assertion that God regenerates those whom he justifies. The critical difficulty that remains, however, is that, in order to make this point, Osiander resorts to the false expedient of confusing these two parts of God’s “manifold” grace: Here is a mutual and indivisible connection (hic mutua est ac individua connexio). Yet reason itself forbids us to transfer the peculiar properties of the one to the other (transferre tamen quod unius peculiare est ad alterum, ratio ipsa prohibet). In this confusion of the two kinds of grace (In hac duplicis gratiae confusione) that Osiander forces upon us there is a like absurdity. For since God, for the preservation of righteousness, renews those whom he freely reckons as righteous (renovat Deus quos pro iustis gratis censet), Osiander mixes (miscet) that gift of regeneration with this free acceptance and contends that they are one and the same. Yet Scripture, even though it joins them, still lists them separately in order that God’s manifold grace may better appear to us (utrunque coniungens distincte tamen enumerat, quo multiplex Dei gratia melius nobis pateat).24

After having dealt with Osiander’s improper extension of the meaning of “righteousness” and “to justify,” Calvin turns to Osiander’s understanding that Christ is, according to his divine nature, our righteousness and justification.25 For Calvin this doctrine of Christ’s essential righteousness, which becomes ours through union with him, is a speculative train of thought, since it directs our attention away from the historical work of Christ the Mediator by which our salvation is accomplished. With this doctrine, Calvin argues, Osiander “would lead us away from the priesthood of Christ and the person of the Mediator to his outward deity.”26 The difficulty with Osiander’s doctrine, and the reason Calvin judges it speculative, is that it bypasses the Trinitarian economy of redemption, which forms the substance of his own understanding of God’s grace. Missing from Osiander’s exposition of our salvation is an awareness that the Father “assigns to the Son the office of justifying,” and that “he does this for us not according to his divine nature but in accordance with the dispensation enjoined upon him.”27 For this reason, Osiander fails to see 24 III.xi.6 (OS 4.187). 25 Immediately before doing so, in III.xi.7 (OS 4.188–9), Calvin refutes Osiander’s assertion that “faith is Christ” (fidem esse Christum) inasmuch as it contains or imparts to us the essential righteousness of Christ. Against this assertion, Calvin characteristically insists that God alone justifies, and that faith is but a “vessel” (vas) that brings us empty to Christ to receive from him grace and salvation. 26 III.xi.8 (OS 4.189): “[…] nos a sacerdotio Christi et Mediatoris persona ad externam eius divinitatem traducat.” 27 III.xi.8 (OS 4.190): “Filio attribuere iustificandi partes. […] [A]c proinde non secundum divinam naturam hoc nobis praestare, sed pro dispensationis sibi iniunctae ratione.”

158

Part 2

that Christ is our righteousness not simply in respect to his eternal righteousness as the second Person of the Trinity, but especially in respect to his unique historical work as our Mediator. Though it is true, Calvin acknowledges, that this work surpasses human nature, it remains nonetheless a work of the incarnate Christ, who fulfills the office of a priest by his atoning sacrifice and continual intercession on our behalf.28 By making our justification depend upon the transfusion of the essential righteousness of Christ into us, Osiander slights and even bypasses altogether the reality of Christ’s mediatorial work, failing thereby to attribute our justification solely to him who was made our righteousness before God.29 Only after treating Osiander’s conceptual confusion of justification and sanctification and his inadequate understanding of Christ’s office as Mediator, does Calvin take up the crucial difference that he discerns between himself and Osiander. This difference relates to their respective views of our union with Christ. In Calvin’s judgment, Osiander’s confusion of justification and sanctification, as well as his diminishment of Christ’s redemptive work, spring from his doctrine of an immediate and essential union of the believer with Christ. By adopting this conception of union with Christ, Osiander is unable to retain a precise understanding of justification, and is no longer able to preserve the certainty of salvation that derives from faith’s recognition of God’s free pardon of sins and imputation of the righteousness of Christ.30 In his treatment of Osiander’s doctrine of union with Christ, Calvin does not object to his claim that we are engrafted into Christ and become partakers of his benefits, but to his peculiar interpretation of the nature of this engrafting and participation. Calvin asserts that Osiander teaches a “gross mingling of Christ with believers” (crassam mixturam Christi cum fidelibus).31 By his insistence that Christ dwells in us essentially and transfuses his essence into us, Osiander inconsiderately treats the manner of Christ’s indwelling, and wholly ignores the operation of the Spirit in mediating his 28 III.xi.9 (OS 4.190–1). 29 III.xi.9 (OS 4.191). In this connection, Calvin provides an interesting account of his understanding of the sacraments in order to show that the economy of redemption is Trinitarian in nature. The sacraments teach us that the “matter” (materias) of righteousness and salvation is found in Christ’s flesh. They further indicate that, though Christ as God and man justifies us, this is the “common task of the Father and the Holy Spirit” (commune esse etiam hoc opus Patris et Spiritus sancti) as well. Calvin finds missing from Osiander’s position any significant attention to this Trinitarian and historical work of redemption; his view is, accordingly, “speculative” in the strict sense of the term, that is, it bypasses the specific manner of God’s revelation and redemption in Christ through the Spirit. 30 Thus, Osiander undermines the two things which must be observed in free justification, namely, God’s honor and peace of conscience. He undermines the first by ignoring the “dispensation” enjoined upon Christ as our Mediator. 31 III.xi.10 (OS 4.192).

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

159

presence.32 In Osiander’s doctrine, there is no mention of the “spiritual bond” (spirituali coniunctione) between Christ and ourselves: “[T]he fact that it comes about through the power of the Holy Spirit that we grow together with Christ, and he becomes our Head and we his members, he reckons of almost no importance unless Christ’s essence be mingled with ours.”33 Osiander’s understanding of this union is inadequate and nonTrinitarian. Osiander substitutes for the personal and reciprocal relation between Christ and believer, as it is mediated by the Holy Spirit, an immediate absorption of the believer into the sphere of the divine being.34 Though Calvin rejects Osiander’s conception of our union with Christ for these reasons, it should be observed that he acknowledges Osiander’s intention to be a legitimate one. Calvin also desires to teach a doctrine of our intimate union with Christ. Precisely because he concurs with this intention and teaches his own doctrine of incorporation into Christ, Calvin is quick to defend his own view as one that teaches a genuine indwelling of Christ in us, though not in terms of a mixture of his essence with ours. Speaking of his conception of our union with Christ in the context of his polemic with Osiander in the Institutes, Calvin observes: [T]hat joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union (mystica […] unio)—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us (Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur, ut nobis imputetur eius iustitia) but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body (sed quia ipsum induimus, et insiti sumus in eius corpus)—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.35

Though Osiander’s description of the manner of our union with Christ is non-Trinitarian and sub-personal, Calvin shares his desire to emphasize the intimacy and transforming power of this union. Since Calvin agrees with Osiander’s intention and teaches a genuine union with Christ and participation in his righteousness, we might well ask: why does he devote so much attention to disassociating his view from Osiander’s? The only ready answer to this question is that Calvin wants to 32 III.xi.10 (OS 4.191–2); III.xi.5 (OS 4.186). 33 III.xi.5 (OS 4.186): “Nam virtute Spiritus sancti fieri ut coalescamus cum Christo, nobisque sit caput et nos eius membra, fere pro nihilo ducit, nisi eius essentia nobis misceatur.” 34 Cf. Niesel’s comment, “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre,” 423–4: “Osiander erkennt nicht dass die Einwohnung Christi durch den Heiligen Geist geschiet, behauptet also eine unmittelbare Wesensvereinigung zwischen Christus und uns.” For a similar assessment, see Canlis, “Calvin, Osiander and Participation in God”; and Garcia, “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ,” esp. 231–43. 35 III.xi.l0 (OS 4.191): “Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur, ut nobis imputetur eius iustitia: sed quia ipsum induimus, et insiti sumus in eius corpur […].”

160

Part 2

teach a doctrine of union with Christ that insures both the inseparability of and the distinction between justification and sanctification. More particularly, he wants to resolve the question of the compatibility between his juridical conception of justification and his simultaneous affirmation of sanctification through union with Christ. In this way, he hopes to meet Osiander’s objection to his juridical conception, namely, that it would be an insult to God and contrary to his nature “that he should justify those who actually remain wicked.”36 Calvin’s answer to this objection has already been noted: “[…] the grace of justification is not separated from sanctification, although they are things distinct.”37 It is simply not Calvin’s teaching that those who are justified are not regenerated at the same time, for all those who are united with Christ through his indwelling Spirit are genuinely renewed and have a real share in Christ’s righteousness. As his description of this union intimates, Calvin does not simply contemplate Christ “outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us,” but he also teaches a real impartation to us of his righteousness through the operation of his Spirit. The gift of sanctification that follows from this union must not be confused with the gift of justification. While acknowledging Osiander’s claim that God does not fail to sanctify those whom he justifies, Calvin takes exception to Osiander’s understanding of our reception of an essential righteousness through union with Christ, since it leaves no place for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification and imperils our assurance of salvation. If the juridical nature of our justification is denied and it is identified with our being made righteous, justification can no longer serve its critical function in preserving this assurance. Accordingly, Calvin asserts that Osiander enfeebles our assurance of salvation when “he laughs at those men who teach that ‘to be justified’ is a legal term, because we must actually be righteous” (Ridet eos Osiander qui iustificari docent esse verbum forense: quia oporteat nos re ipsa esse iustos).38 To the contrary, this assurance finally depends upon our conceiving justification as a legal notion, which consists of the pardon of sins and the imputation of righteousness.39 Osiander’s doctrine of an essential righteousness deprives the believer of confidence in God’s mercy: But because it is well known by experience that the traces of sin always remain in the righteous, their justification must be very different from reformation into newness of 36 III.xi.11 (OS 4.193). 37 III.xi.11 (OS 4.193): “[…] non separari iustificandi gratiam a regeneratione, licet res sint distinctae.” 38 III.xi.II (OS 4.193). 39 In III.xi.11 (OS 4.192–5), Calvin first identifies justification with pardon alone, but he subsequently refers to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as well.

The Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness

161

life […]. No portion of righteousness sets our consciences at peace until it has been determined that we are pleasing to God, because we are entirely righteous before him.40

Since sanctification is a lifelong process that is never completed in this life, it cannot be identified with justification. The essential truth of our justification, that God freely reckons as righteous those who are not yet intrinsically and wholly righteous, is lost when these distinct gifts are identified as in Osiander’s view.

10.3 Summary In his polemic with Osiander, Calvin makes clear why he objects to his doctrine of an essential righteousness that is imparted to us through a “crass mixture” of Christ’s essence with ours. With this doctrine, Osiander makes our justification depend upon an intrinsic righteousness that inheres in us. But this is manifestly impossible, Calvin argues, because our righteousness, imparted to us through the Spirit, cannot suffice for righteousness before God’s tribunal. Only the perfect righteousness of Christ, which remains to some degree “outside of us” (extra nos) so long as we live in this world, can enable us to stand coram Deo. So long as our union with him (however intimate and productive of genuine righteousness in us) is properly interpreted as a personal and reciprocal relation between ourselves and Christ through his Spirit, we may not confuse his righteousness with our own. We may also continue to insist upon a juridical and imputative conception of justification as wholly consistent with it. Though Christ lives and dwells in us through the Spirit, renewing us after the image of God, he continues to possess a unique and unparalleled righteousness that alone makes us acceptable to God when it is imputed to us. As Calvin puts it, in a characteristic comment toward the conclusion of his polemic with Osiander, This is a wonderful plan of justification that, covered by the righteousness of Christ, they should not tremble at the judgment they deserve, and that while they rightly condemn themselves, they should be accounted righteous outside themselves (iusti extra se censeantur).41

In his dispute with Osiander, therefore, Calvin clarifies his view of the believer’s union with Christ and its twofold benefit, justification and sanctification. He reiterates his basic formula that these are distinct, yet inseparable, 40 III.xi.11 (OS 4.193–4). 41 III.xi.11 (OS 4.195): “Sed haec est mirabilis iustificandi ratio, ut Christi iustitia tecti non exhorreant iudicium quo digni smt, et dum seipsos merito damnant, iusti extra se censeantur.”

162

Part 2

aspects of God’s grace in Christ, and once more explains why he believes we must continue to distinguish between them. Furthermore, he shows how his doctrine of our union with Christ is compatible with a juridical conception of justification that emphasizes the necessity of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He does this, however, without resorting to the expedient of Lüttge and to an extent of Doumerge (who relegates his notion of imputation to a secondary status or confuses it with sanctification).42 In this way, Calvin is able to agree with Osiander that God only justifies those whom he sanctifies, and yet argue against an identification of these distinct gifts. Precisely because Osiander misconceives the nature of our union with Christ, he is unable to see how a forensic conception of justification is perfectly consistent with an emphasis upon the necessity of sanctification. Calvin’s refutation of Osiander’s teaching indicates his own awareness of the question of the relation between union with Christ and the imputation of righteousness in justification. However, unlike his contemporary Osiander and later interpreters such as Lüttge, Calvin discerns no tension between these themes. Christ does not justify anyone whom he does not also sanctify. Justification must always be based only upon the perfect righteousness of Christ that is imputed to believers, otherwise believers will have no sure basis for confidence before God. Though Christ’s Spirit truly joins us to Christ and produces a real righteousness in us, yet because this righteousness is imperfect, it could never be the basis for our acceptance with God.

42 It is a puzzling thing, as mentioned at the outset of this chapter, that Stuermann, Calvin’s Concept of Faith, 385, concludes that the idea of imputation is superfluous, since we “coalesce” with Christ and partake of his righteousness. While the latter is indeed true, our coalescence with Christ is through faith and yields no identity in righteousness between him and ourselves. The critical point for Calvin, and the reason he insists upon the idea of imputation, is quite simple: no one, however genuine the righteousness imparted to him through the regeneration of the Spirit, is perfectly righteous coram Deo. All must be covered with the righteousness of Christ, recognizing in him God’s redeeming action on our behalf and in our place. Calvin’s use of the language of imputation should not obscure the essential point it reflects, namely, that God has freely justified us in Christ.

11. Double Justification

It is unfortunate that interpreters of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” have given insufficient attention to his particular doctrine of double justification, or the believer’s “twofold acceptance” by God. Where Calvin’s espousal of a double justification has been recognized, the tendency has been to interpret it solely as an extension of Calvin’s polemic against Roman Catholic and medieval teachings on the doctrine of grace.1 The relative inattention to this doctrine and the tendency to interpret it exclusively in terms of Calvin’s polemic with alternative views together represent a failure to recognize its importance in Calvin’s attempt to find a point of contact with some of the doctrinally reforming theologians of the Roman Catholic Church. When Calvin participated in the Regensburg Colloquy in 1541 with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, including Gasparo Contarini, he expressed his willingness to speak of a “double justification” or “twofold righteousness.”2 Calvin’s use of the language of a “double justification” not only served his polemic with alternative viewpoints, but it 1 E.g., R.S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, 302–3; W. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 135–6. Niesel simply interprets this idea of a double justification as a further development of this polemic and as a means for refuting some of the Scriptural proofs of Catholic theologians. 2 For recent treatments of the importance of Calvin’s participation in this conference, see Anthony N.S. Lane, “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification,” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 205–24; idem, “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman Selderhuis (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 231–61; idem, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002), 46–60; and idem, “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities: Justification at Regensburg (1541) and Trent (1546–1547),” in Justification in Perspective, ed. Bruce L. McCormack, 119–45. Lane correctly emphasizes the positive significance of this doctrine for the relation between justification and sanctification and points out that a doctrine of double justification served as a point of agreement at this Colloquy. It is of considerable historical interest that the Council of Trent rejected the specific doctrine of double justification set forth by Girolamo Seripando; Seripando was, however, able to preserve Contarini and others holding similar views from outright condemnation. See Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, trans. Dom Ernest Graf (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1961), 2:188, 241, 255–6 for a treatment of Seripando’s view and his activities at the Council of Trent. Jedin’s summary of Seripando’s view indicates the extent to which his position is similar to that of Calvin (188): “Thus the remission of sin is wrought on the basis of the acts of faith and trust. Charity is God’s gift to the reconciled. The objection that was to be expected, that this sketch implied the acceptance of the sola fide doctrine, Seripando countered by pointing to the fact that the remission of sin and sanctification are only logically separate, not chronologically, and as a psychological process they are simultaneous.”

164

Part 2

also provided a possible point of agreement in his discussion with Catholic theologians who were dissatisfied with the teaching of the medieval church. With this doctrine Calvin developed further his own view of the relation between justification and sanctification and sought to meet some of the criticisms brought against the teaching of the Reformers. Consequently, Calvin’s willingness to speak of a “double justification” is of special interest for our exposition of Calvin’s understanding of the relation between the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God.”

11.1 “Double Justification” and the Distinction Between Justification and Sanctification The immediate occasion in his Institutes for Calvin’s espousal of a doctrine of double justification is indeed a polemical one. Specifically, Calvin is anxious to meet the criticism of Catholic opponents that his doctrine of justification is incompatible with those Scriptural references to the promises of the law that seem to teach the reward of God only extends to those who meet the condition laid down in the law.3 If justification is by faith alone, then the blessing and the curse that apply respectively to those who keep or fail to keep the law, will be of no effect. In Calvin’s and the Reformers’ view of justification, the promises to those who keep the law will be nullified.4 Calvin’s conception of justification, therefore, must be rejected as incompatible with clear Scriptural teaching about the promises of the law. In his reply to this criticism, Calvin opens with a reassertion of his fundamental position, that justification in no respect depends upon works done in accordance with the law. The reason he withdraws good works from justification, he notes, is […] not that no good works may be done, or that what is done may be denied to be good, but because we may not rely upon them, glory in them, or ascribe salvation to them. For our assurance, our glory, and the sole anchor of our salvation are that Christ, the Son of God is ours.5

The whole point of his doctrine of justification is to preserve this anchor of our salvation. If only those who keep the law are justified, the curse against disobedience will remain over us. Since no one perfectly keeps the law or is 3 III.xvii.1 (OS 4.253–4). 4 III.xvii.1 (OS 4.253–4). 5 III.xvii.1 (OS 4.253): “[…] siquidem operibus detrahitur iustificatio, non ut nulla bona fiant opera, aut bona esse negentur quae fiunt: sed ne illis fidamus, ne gloriemur, ne salutem adscribamus. Fiducia enim haec nostra est, haec gloria, et unica salutis anchora, quod Christus filius Dei noster est […].”

Double Justification

165

able to achieve the righteousness upon which the legal promise depends (Christ alone excepted), believers will only despair of God’s mercy if their justification rests upon the righteousness of works.6 After reasserting his basic position on justification by faith alone, Calvin argues further that there is a way in which these passages, which teach a promise contingent upon keeping the law, may be interpreted without detracting from free justification. This is the case when we acknowledge that these legal promises are put into effect through the gospel.7 It is in connection with this argument that Calvin first makes his appeal to a doctrine of double justification. For Calvin, Scriptural passages that speak of a promise contingent upon keeping the law may be interpreted as consistent with the doctrine of justification only if we understand the promises of the gospel (which proclaim the free forgiveness of sins) to make not only our persons, but also our works acceptable to God.8 In this respect, there is a “twofold acceptance before God” (duplicem […] apud Deum acceptionem), the acceptance of our persons and the acceptance of our works. The latter, or second acceptance, must be understood, like the first, to depend upon God’s gratuitous mercy in embracing us in Christ rather than in ourselves. Yet, unlike the first justification or acceptance that relates to our persons, the second relates to our works insofar as they are the fruits of faith and the product of the indwelling Spirit’s work within us. In his exposition of the meaning of this “twofold acceptance” or justification, Calvin offers a broad definition of the difference beween God’s acceptance of our persons and of our works: For the Lord cannot fail to love and embrace the good things that he works in them through his Spirit. But we must always remember that God “accepts” believers by reason of works only because he is their source and graciously, by way of adding to his liberality, deigns also to show “acceptance” toward the good works he has himself bestowed (nisi quia illorum causa et in gratiam, quicquid bonorum operum contulit liberalitatem suam augendo, sua quoque acceptione dignatur) […]. But because the godly, encompassed with mortal flesh, are still sinners, and their good works are as yet incomplete and redolent of the vices of the flesh, he can be propitious neither to the former nor to the latter unless he embrace them in Christ (neque illis neque his propitius esse potest nisi in Christo magis quam in seipsis amplexetur) rather than in themselves.9 6 III.xvii.1–2 (OS 4.254–5). Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.712): “Or ceste condition [i.e. keeping the law] maintenant est impossible: car iamais homme n’a accompli la Loy, et iamais nul ne l’accomplira. Ainsi donc ceste promesse n’aura nul effet de nostre costé.” 7 III.xvii.3 (OS 4.255–6). 8 III.xvii.3 (OS 4.255): “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.” 9 III.xvii.5 (OS 4.257–8).

166

Part 2

It is in this sense that we may speak of the promises of the law being put into effect through the gospel. Though we are justified solely by grace through faith, this does not exclude an acknowledgment that God takes delight in the good works of those whom he sanctifies by his Spirit and whom he clothes with Christ’s righteousness. In his interpretation of Scripture passages that link God’s promise with works of obedience to the law, Calvin is careful to maintain his basic doctrine of justification with its emphasis upon faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Yet, because our justification is so intimately joined with our sanctification, he readily admits that God takes genuine pleasure in and rewards our progress in righteousness. Both senses of justification are fully compatible, since it is by faith alone that our persons and our works become acceptable to God.10 Since it is by the exclusive instrumentality of faith that we acknowledge our need and the extent to which we fall short of perfect righteousness, faith justifies both our persons and our works through its reception of the imputed righteousness of Christ: God reconciles to himself those who are born only of the flesh, and those who are destitute of all good; and since he finds nothing in them except a dreadful mass of evils, he counts them just by imputation (imputatione iustos habet). But those to whom he has imparted the Spirit of holiness and righteousness, he embraces with his gifts. Nevertheless, in order that their good works may please God, it is necessary that these works themselves should be justified by gratuitous imputation (ea quoque ipsa iustificari gratuita imputatione oportet); but some evil is always inherent in them.11

This passage and others like it indicate that, for Calvin, there is no contradiction between God’s acceptance of our persons and his acceptance of our works; for the second of these, his acceptance of our works, wholly depends upon the first. God justifies or accepts our works, not because they possess an inherent righteousness that partly contributes to our salvation, but because he pardons their imperfection and reckons them righteous on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The justification of our works depends upon the free justification of our persons, so that it too represents 10 III.xvii.10 (OS 4.263): “[…] sola fide non tantum nos sed opera etiam nostra iustificari.” Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.719): “[…] mais notons qu’il nous iustifie en nos persomes et nous iustifie mesmes en nos oeuvres par la pure foy.” Also cf. Comm. Ps 106:31 (CO 32.128); Comm. Rom 4:6 (CO 49.72); Comm. 2 Tim 4:8 (CO 52.390–1); Comm. Acts 10:4 (CO 48.226). 11 Comm. Gen 15:6 (CO 23.214). Thus, in strict correspondence with the justification of our persons, Calvin conceives of this second justification as by faith alone and dependent upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to cover our imperfect works. Also see III.xvii.9 (OS 4.262); III.xvii.15 (OS 4.269); Comm. Rom 4:6 (CO 49.72); Comm. 1 Cor 9:18 (CO 49.446–7); Comm. Rom 7:19 (CO 49.132); Comm. John 4:36 (CO 47.95); Comm. John 5:29 (CO 47.120); Comm. Luke 1:6 (CO 45.11).

Double Justification

167

an act of God’s kindness that rests entirely upon God’s “perpetually free” covenant with us.12

11.2 “Double Justification” and the Inseparability of Justification and Sanctification Perhaps more appropriate to our purpose here, however, is the significance of the doctrine of double justification for evaluating Calvin’s understanding of the positive relation between justification and sanctification. This feature of Calvin’s view has not been adequately acknowledged by interpreters of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God.” Though Calvin nowhere admits a causal relation between justification and sanctification, his understanding of a second justification of our works enables Calvin to posit a close connection between justification and sanctification and to teach a doctrine of “reward” for good works that does not imply the unacceptable notion of merit. Calvin’s doctrine of double justification serves not only a polemical purpose, but also as an “interesting means for relating sanctification and justification.”13 It forms part of Calvin’s attempt to reconcile some of the differences between himself and those within the Catholic Church interested in reforming its doctrine of grace. According to Calvin, there is a close connection between justification and sanctification that is confirmed by this twofold acceptance. This doctrine indicates that God accepts our works and our persons in Christ and that he is graciously favorable to us, not only as unrighteous sinners, but 12 III.xvii.5 (OS 4.258): “Siquidem ut in omnibus misericordiae suae pactis integritatem ac sanctimoniam vitae vicissim a servis suis Deus stipulatur ne ludibrio sit sua bonitas, neve quis inani ob eam exultatione turgidus, benedicat animae suae, ambulans interim in pravitate cordis sui: ita in foederis communionem admissos, vult hac via in officio continere; nihilo tamen minus foedus ipsum et gratuitum initio feritur, et perpetuo tale manet.” Because this covenant is free, however much it may stipulate conditions, everything that its members receive, including the acceptance and reward of their works, remains a free gift of God’s grace. Cf. III.xvii.6 (OS 4.258– 9); III.xvii.8–9 (OS 4.261–2); Comm. Rom 6:14 (CO 49.113); Comm. Luke 17:7–10 (CO 45.415). 13 Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 139. For a similar analysis of the positive significance of Calvin’s doctrine of the justification of the believer’s works in relation to his view of the inseparability of justification and sanctification, see Peter Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 185–93. Lillback also argues that Calvin’s view of justification is, in this respect, substantially different from that of Luther, who rejected the idea of God’s acceptance of the believer’s good works. The validity of this claim depends in part upon his incautious statement that Calvin, unlike Luther, “is insistent that works have a proper place in the discussion of justification by faith alone” (192). This statement is somewhat misleading, since Calvin clearly insists that the justification of the believer’s works can only occur within the context of a prior justification of the believer’s person. For a similar (and in my judgment, equally misleading) claim regarding Calvin’s divergence from Luther on the doctrine of justification, see Garcia, “Life in Christ,” 67–70, 228–34.

168

Part 2

also as those who are making progress in righteousness through the Spirit of sanctification. It confirms Calvin’s conviction that Christ is inseparable from his Spirit, so that those who embrace him by faith for forgiveness and righteousness must thereby yield to his Spirit and experience the renewal of their lives. Though the cause of our salvation and adoption is God’s gratuitous mercy, this is inseparable from the “manner” (modo) of our adoption through the sanctification of our lives: Therefore, if one seeks the first cause (prima causa) that opens for the saints the door to God’s kingdom, and hence gives them a permanent standing-ground in it, at once we answer: Because the Lord by his own mercy has adopted them once for all, and keeps them continually. But if the question is of the manner (de modo quaestio), we must proceed to regeneration […].14

The manner in which we are renewed in righteousness attests to our adoption as God’s children, and God accepts this renewal with paternal delight: Since, therefore, wherever God contemplates his own face, he both rightly loves it and holds it in honor; it is said with good reason that the lives of believers, framed to holiness and righteousness, are pleasing to him.15

Given this understanding of God’s acceptance of our works and the polemical occasion that led Calvin to its formulation, one can readily see how Calvin finds it useful in his treatment of the meaning of God’s “reward” for good works. Contrary to those who teach justification by works and who interpret this reward in terms of merit, Calvin argues that it too is an expression of God’s kindness and liberality. Consequently, in his consideration of those Scripture passages which refer to God rewarding the works of the faithful, Calvin appeals to the idea of a second justification or God’s acceptance of our works. By means of this appeal, Calvin emphatically rejects the idea of merit in the procurement of this reward, and insists that the relation between good works and God’s reward is a gracious one.

14 III.xvii.5 (OS 4.257). It is this sort of statement to which I was referring when it was noted that Doumerge’s distinction between the “cause” and the “means” of justification may have been based upon a misreading of some passages in Calvin’s writings. Clearly, Calvin is not speaking here of sanctification as the means of justification, but as the means of our entrance and continual membership within the kingdom of God. 15 III.xvii.5 (OS 4.257): “Quoniam ergo ubicunque faciem sam Deus contemplatur, et merito amat, et in honore habet: non sine causa dicitur illi placere fidelium vita, ad sanctitatem et iustitiam composita.” Cf. Serm. 2 Sam 22:20 (SC 1.646): “Or notons, quand Dieu recognoit les biens qui sont en nous, ce n’est rien du nostre, mais d’autant qu’il les y a mis, et c’est autant comme s’il recognoissoit là son image.” Serm. Job 22:1–8 (CO 34.272): “Or d’autant que Dieu recognoist tout ce qui est bon estre de lui, voila pourquoy il aime le bien: comme il est impossible qu’il en face autrement, veu qu’il en est la source et la fontaine.” Also cf. Comm. Acts 10:35 (CO 48.243–4); Serm. Deut 6:20–25 (CO 26.493–4).

Double Justification

169

When we speak of a “reward” for good works, we must understand it in terms of God giving to his own benefits the “title of reward.”16 The works that God accepts and rewards are those that we have from his grace.17 Since no one satisfies the absolute requirements of God’s law when God rewards us for our works, his reward depends upon our free adoption and is an “inheritance” that God freely gives to his children.18 This gracious reward is wholly incompatible with the idea of merit, since there is no “mutual relation” (mutua relatio) or “correlation” (correlatio) between reward and merit, and the promise of reward is gratuitous.19 As is true of God’s acceptance of our works, this promise rests upon and is put into effect through the pardon of our sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which alone deserves the imprimatur of the Father’s approval. Not only does God’s acceptance of our works depend upon his grace, but also his reward. Both show the full extent of his favor in adding grace to grace, and in granting us an inheritance far in excess of anything that might be owed to us.

11.3 Summary It is certainly correct to emphasize the polemical purpose that Calvin’s understanding of double justification serves in his thought. Undoubtedly, it allows him to show the compatibility of justification by grace alone through faith with those passages that teach a promise contingent upon keeping the law as well as with those that speak of a reward for good works. Nonetheless, Calvin’s view of double justification also corresponds to his view of the positive relation between justification and sanctification, and provides an alternative to similar doctrines of double justification that were espoused by some medieval theologians.

16 Comm. Gen 22:15 (CO 23.318–9). Cf. Serm. Deut 5:28–33 (CO 26.418): “[…] il luy plaist de desployer sa bonté gratuite envers nous iusques là, d’appeller salaire ce qu’il nous donne de sa liberalité pure et franche, sans y avoir esté aucunement tenu.” Also cf. II.v.2 (OS 3.300); III.xv.4 (OS 4.243); Comm. Ps 18:21 (CO 31.180); Comm. Ezek 18:14–7 (CO 40.438–9). 17 Comm. Gal 6:8 (CO 50.262). In this respect, God voluntarily makes himself our debtor. Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.728): “Or il est vray qu’il se fait bien nostre debteur, voire et un debteur volontaire: car il ne trouvera rien en nous pourquoy il nous soit oblige. Ainsi donc, de son costé il y a salaire lequel il nous donne gratuitement: il n’y a point de merite du nostre.” 18 Comm. Col 3:22 (CO 52.126): “Nam haereditas ex adoptione est.” Cf. III.xviii.2 (OS 4.271–2). 19 See, e.g., Comm. Matt 5:12 (CO 45.165): “[…] neque enim […] mutua est relatio inter mercedem et meritum, sed gratuita est promissio mercedes”; III.xviii.4 (OS 4.274): “[…] ne correlationem meriti ac mercedes”; Comm. 1 Tim 6:18 (CO 52.334); Comm. 2 Tim 4:8 (CO 52.390–1); Comm. Phil 1:11 (CO 52.13); Comm. Matt 16:17 (CO 45.483); Comm. Heb 6:10 (CO 55.74); Comm. Luke 17:7–10 (CO 45.414–5); Comm. Rom 2:6 (CO 49.34).

170

Part 2

Calvin’s doctrine does not refer to a double justification through the sacrament of baptism and subsequently, after “shipwreck” through mortal sin, through the sacrament of penance.20 Nor does it refer to justification by an imputed and inherent righteousness, since Calvin understands God’s acceptance of our works to depend also on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Nor is it identical with the Scholastic doctrine of “accepting grace” (gratia acceptans), which Calvin acknowledges to be similar in some respects to his own position.21 This Scholastic doctrine suggests that, although our good works are not intrinsically worthy of obtaining salvation, they are advanced by God’s accepting grace to a value adequate for this purpose. Calvin willingly concurs with the acknowledgment that our works are not intrinsically worthy of obtaining salvation. But he demures from the inference that, by virtue of God’s acceptance of them, these works become meritorious and worthy of God’s reward.22 On Calvin’s view of double justification, we may speak of God’s acceptance of our works, provided this acceptance rests upon the prior, free acceptance of our persons. Furthermore, the works that God accepts are understood to be his own gifts to us through the working of his Spirit within us. When this is borne in mind, we may legitimately speak of God’s delight and pleasure in the good works of his children whom he freely adopts in Christ.23

20 Calvin rejects the distinction between mortal and venial sins upon which this understanding depends. Furthermore, he rejects the whole medieval sacrament of penance and argues that the sacrament of baptism is a sufficient means for strengthening faith by the recognition of God’s mercy in forgiving original and actual sin. For a treatment of the late medieval idea of a “covenant of acceptance,” which bears some resemblance to Calvin’s view of double justification, see Lillback, The Binding of God, 46–55, 200–5. 21 This doctrine was developed especially by the Franciscan theologians Duns Scotus and Ockham. See Willis, “Notes on A. Ganoczy’s Calvin, Théologien De L’Eglise Et Du Ministére,” 196. 22 E.g., III.xvii.15 (OS 4.269): “Illi enim sentiunt, imparia alioqui opera ex Legis pacto saluti comparandae, in aequalitatis tamen pretium Dei acceptione evehi.” Also cf. III.xiv.12 (OS 4.231); Comm. Rom 3:20 (CO 49.56). 23 Thus, Göhler’s comment in his Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung, 96, is correct: “Die Rechtfertigung der Werke kann nicht mit der Rechtfertigung aus dem Glauben in Widerspruch geraten, da von dieser die Rechtfertigung der Werke immer abhängt.” Markus Barth, Justification, trans. A.M. Woodruff (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 80, fn. 20, interprets this division between the justification of one’s person and of one’s works to be “artificial if not arbitrary.” Whether this is so depends, not upon whether it has any explicit exegetical warrant, as Barth assumes, but whether it served a useful purpose in the context of Reformation debates over the doctrine of justification. From the point of view of the Pauline texts, it may appear artificial if not arbitrary, but this does not take into account Calvin’s interest in proposing it. That interest, I have suggested, was in part to reach a point of contact with Catholic reformers on the doctrine of justification.

12. Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin’s Theology In our analysis of Calvin’s understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification to this point, we have seen that his basic position amounts to the claim that these are two conceptually distinct, yet inseparable, benefits conferred by Christ upon the believer in the appropriation of salvation. Though Calvin insists upon the need to distinguish between them, he places as much emphasis upon the invariable and necessary bond between them. To separate them, he argues, would be to tear Christ asunder and sever him from his Spirit. The integral relation between these two aspects of the “twofold grace of God” is ultimately rooted in their common foundation in the gracious action of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The unity between justification and sanctification is evident in Calvin’s decision to treat sanctification before justification in the Institutes, in his refutation of Osiander’s doctrine of an essential union with Christ, and in his doctrine of double justification. In each of these features of his theology, Calvin consistently appeals to his basic understanding of the “twofold grace of God” and the relation of its aspects. Before prematurely drawing any general conclusions from our analysis of the “twofold grace of God,” however, there remain several important instances in Calvin’s theology where this understanding further informs his thought. These are: 1) his understanding of sanctification as an “effect” and “inferior cause” of justification; 2) his refutation of the charge that free justification undercuts the necessity of good works; 3) his treatment of the respective views of the apostles James and Paul on the doctrine of justification; and 4) his use of the doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” in expounding the doctrines of the covenant and kingdom of God. In each of these instances, Calvin further clarifies the significance of his conception of justification and sanctification as distinct, yet inseparable, aspects of God’s grace in Christ. For this reason, a brief exposition of Calvin’s position in each instance will complement the preceding analysis and confirm our interpretation of his view of the “twofold grace of God.”

172

Part 2

12.1 Sanctification: An “Effect” and “Inferior Cause” of Justification Within the framework suggested by his formula that justification and sanctification are two distinct, yet inseparable, parts of God’s grace in Christ, Calvin sometimes, when he wants to define with greater precision the relation between them, refers to sanctification as both an “effect” (consequentia, effectus) and an “inferior cause” (causa inferior) of justification. Though the question whether Calvin more highly values the one aspect than the other of the “twofold grace of God” seems incapable of resolution,1 the question of the order, sequence, and interrelation between justification and sanctification is one that Calvin often addresses and for which he provides a definite answer. Calvin acknowledges an order between justification and sanctification. Justification is the basis or presupposition for sanctification, and sanctification is the telos, consequence, or effect of justification. Whereas justification denotes the reason or foundation, sanctification denotes the purpose or manner of salvation. Since justification and sanctification are invariably conjoined, this order or sequence is not chronological but theological. Sanctification relates to justification, not as its foundation or cause, but as its necessary consequence. To clarify the relation between justification and sanctification (or good works), Calvin describes the relation between these aspects of God’s grace in Christ in two significant and closely related ways. On the one hand, sanctification is described as the “effect” of justification; and on the other hand, sanctification is termed a kind of “inferior cause” of justification, on the principle that a “necessary consequence” is a kind of condition. Though not the cause of justification, sanctification is necessary to justification in the sense that believers are not acceptable to God without the simultaneous renewal of their lives by the work of Christ’s Spirit. Calvin expresses his understanding of sanctification as the effect or consequence of justification in a variety of ways. To an extent, his designation 1 It is unresolvable simply because everything depends upon the question that is at issue. For Calvin, justification is the “first” or “principal” benefit of God’s grace when the question concerns the cause or anchor of salvation. Sanctification is equally—if not more—important, however, from the point of view of the telos or purpose of salvation. Despite Barth’s dubious assertion that, “[…] as distinct from Luther, Calvin must be called the theologian of sanctification,” (509), Barth puts this point well (Church Dogmatics, IV/2, 510–11): “In fact we can and should learn from the classical example of his mode of treatment that we can give only a twofold answer to the question of priority in the relationship of these two moments or aspects. Calvin was quite in earnest when he gave sanctification a strategic precedence over justification. He was also quite in earnest when he gave the latter a tactical precedence. Why could he be so free, and yet so bound, in relation to the two? Because he started at the place which is superior to both because it embraces both, so that in the light of it we can and must give the primacy, now to the one and now to the other, according to the different standpoints from which to look.”

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

173

of justification as the “first” or “principal” part, and of sanctification as the “second” part, of the gospel, reflects this understanding. The same holds true for his analogy of the relation between the sun and its heat. Sanctification may no more be separated from justification than the heat, which necessarily and invariably accompanies it, may be separated from the sun’s light.2 Sanctification is by faith and follows upon it, not in any chronological sense, but in the sense that an effect follows upon its cause. As Calvin puts it in a passage representative of this understanding: The righteousness of works […] is the effect of the righteousness of faith, and the blessedness which arises from works is the effect of the blessedness which consists in the remission of sins […]. We should consider here the order of causes as well as the dispensation of the grace of God.3

It is only in “consequence” (effectus) of God’s free forgiveness that he “governs us by his Spirit, mortifies the lusts of our flesh, cleanses us from our corruptions, and restores us to the healthy condition of a godly and an upright life.”4 Though our adoption as God’s children is free and “without repentance,” the “earnest and seal” of that adoption is the Spirit of Christ in us, who brings about a conformity between ourselves and Christ such that God may recognize in us the genuine insignia of his children.5 Within the context of the dispensation of God’s grace in Christ, sanctification must be understood as the telos or finis of God’s free pardon and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. God’s gracious pardon is granted to us, “not to foster our sins, but to recall us to a desire to live in holiness and sanctification.”6 The “end” (finis) of Christ’s atoning death is the service of God,7 and the “end” (finis) likewise of our calling is that God might make us holy in obedience.8 That sanctification should invariably accompany justification as 2 Cf., e.g., Serm. Gal 2:17–8 (CO 50.438): “Ce sont deux choses coniointes comme d’un lien inseparable, comme la clarté du soleil ne peut point estre separee de sa chaleur. Ainsi ces deux graces (c’est à scavoir nostre iustice at la remission de nos pechez) sont inviolablement coniointes avec ce renouvellement qui est fait par l’esprit de sanctification.” 3 Comm. Rom 4:6 (CO 49.73): “Ergo et operum iustitia effectus est iustitiae fidei: et beatitudo ex operibus effectus beatitudinis, quae sita est in peccatorm remissione […]. Nempe consideranda est hic tam series causarum, quam gratiaie Dei dispensatio.” Cf. Comm. Rom 4:9–10 (CO 49.74); Comm. 1 Tim 1:5 (CO 52.253). 4 Comm. Ps 103:3 (CO 32.75). 5 III.xvii.6 (OS 4.259): “[…] quia in illis germana demum filiorum insignia agnoscit, qui Spiritu eius ad bonum reguntur.” Cf. Serm. Job 14:13–15 (CO 33.691): “[…] car le S. Esprit n’est point oisof en nous, mais plustost il nous declare qu’il habite en nous, afin que nous soyons enfans de Dieu: et nous ne le pouvons estre que quant et quant nous ne mettions peine de nous adonner à bonnes oeuvres, et suivre sa volonté.” Also cf. Comm. Ezek 3:20 (CO 40.96). 6 Comm. Matt 9:13 (CO 45.251). 7 Comm. Heb 9:14 (CO 55.111). 8 Comm. Heb 12:16 (CO 55.179). Cf. Serm. Gal 5:22–6 (CO 51.50): “Nous disons que Iesus Christ ne nous est pas seulement donné à fin que par son moyen nous obtenions remission de

174

Part 2

its consequence or effect follows self-evidently from the nature and purpose of our redemption in Christ. Since Christ, by his atoning death, purchased us for himself and reconciled us to God, we belong to him, something which requires separation from the world.9 Because this order and sequence obtains between justification and sanctification within the dispensation of God’s grace, namely, God freely adopts or justifies us in Christ in order that we might show by our lives that we belong to him, Calvin also believes it is permissible to speak of good works as “inferior causes” (causas inferiores) of the believer’s pardon.10 This does not mean that good works are the originating cause for our salvation and fellowship with God. Rather, it means that, because sanctification is the “effect” and “manner” (modus) of our free adoption by God, we may say that this adoption is only granted to us when we submit to the governance of his Spirit.11 It is in this sense that we must interpret Scripture when it seems to describe repentance as the cause of our salvation: For it is an accustomed method of speaking in Scripture, to denote by the word that (ut) the consequence rather than the cause (consequentiam magis notare quam causam). For although the grace of God alone begins and completes our salvation; yet, since by obeying the call of God, we fulfill our course, we are said, also in this manner, to obtain the salvation promised by God (dicimur etiam hoc modo salutem a Deo promissam consequi).12 nos pechez devant Dieu: mais c’est à ce qu’estans regenerez par son sainct Esprit nous cheminions en nouveaté de vie.” Serm. Isa 28:16–17 (SC 2.550): “[…] quelle est a fin de l’Evangile; c’est assavoir […] que nous menions une vie sainte et telle qu’on puisse voir que la loy de Dieu domine sur nous.” Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 460–1, notes that for this reason it is not enough to say that Calvin views sanctification as simply an “effect” of justification. Sanctification is a necessary and integral aspect of the renewed communion with the Triune God that salvation bestows. 9 Comm. Gal 1:4 (CO 50.170): “Finem quoque redemptionis declarat, quod Christus nos sibi acquisivit morte sua in peculium. Id fit quum segregamur a mundo: nam quamdiu ex mundo sumus, non pertinemus ad Christum.” 10 III.xiv.21 (OS 4.238). Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 406, offers a helpful comment regarding Calvin’s use of the language, “inferior cause,” at this point: “Here, a different sense of ‘condition’ is to be understood from those considered earlier, the rather paradoxical sense in which a consequence may be said to be a condition. Note that Calvin distinguishes carefully between faith and works. Faith is a cause, the instrumental cause, of personal justification, while works are evidence of personal justification, an ‘inferior cause’, and so are a consequence, a causal consequence of it which occurs later in time. We can say ‘if no faith then no justification’ just as we can say ‘if no works then no justification’ but if we do so we are using the if-thens very differently.” Helms cites Calvin’s subtlety on this point as an example of his positive use of Scholastic distinctions in the formulation of his theology. 11 Comm. Acts 10:43 (CO 48.249–50): “[…] regenerationem spiritus sub fide comprehendi, sicuti eius est effectus. Nam ideo credimus in Christum, partim ut gratuita iustitiae imputatione restituat nos in patris gratiam; partim, ut nos spiritu suo sanctificet. Et scimus, hac lege nos adoptari a Deo in filios, ut spiritu nos suo gubernet.” 12 Comm. Gen 18:19 (CO 23.259–60).

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

175

As the effect of our justification and its necessary accompaniment within the purpose of God’s gracious action, sanctification, though not the cause or reason, is the manner in which God delivers us from guilt.13 Since the promise of salvation is perpetually joined to the doctrine of repentance, it is not possible to taste the goodness of God unless we abhor ourselves on account of sin and renounce ourselves and the world.14 Though “conversion is not the ground” (causa non sit conversio) of forgiveness, nevertheless, we know that only those who repent are reconciled to God (nullus Deo reconciliari nisi qui resipiscunt).15 It would be a serious error if God’s pardon were separated from its invariable accompaniment, sanctification, since this would allow us to teach that we may expect God’s pardon without being converted to him.16 According to Calvin, not only is sanctification the consequence of justification, but it is also, when prudently interpreted, its “inferior cause.” In both of these senses, sanctification is understood as distinct, yet inseparable, from justification. Together, justification and sanctification comprise the manifold way in which God’s grace in Christ appears to us, as we distinguish between its cause or foundation on the one hand, and its effect, purpose, or consequence on the other. Yet so integral is the connection between these aspects that, though sanctification remains distinct from justification, it may be genuinely described as that without which there is no reconciliation with God.17 13 Comm. Rom 8:2 (CO 49.137): “[…] non […] causam sed modum tradi duntaxat quo solvimur a reatu.” This is but another way of saying, Calvin adds, that the “grace of regeneration is never separated from the imputation of righteousness” (regenerationis gratiam ab imputatione iustitiae nunquam disiungi). Cf. Serm. Job 22:1–8 (CO 34.280): “Car voila le seul moyen d’obtenir pardon de toutes nos offenses, c’est quand il plaist à Dieu de les couvrir et abolir par sa bonté, et nous en nettoyer par la vertu de son sainct Esprit.” Also cf. Comm. Rom 8:17 (CO 49.151). 14 Comm. Isa 55:7 (CO 37.288): “Unde colligimus poenitentiae doctrinam cum promissione salutis perpetuo coniungendam esse: quia non aliter possunt homines gustare bonitatem Dei, quam si displiceant sibi in peccatis suis, sibique et mundo renuntient.” 15 Comm. 1 Cor 6:9 (CO 49.393). Cf. Comm. 1 Peter 1:23 (CO 55.228–9): “[…] nos non sine regeneratione esse Christianos”; Comm. Ezek 16:63 (CO 40.398): “Neque enim aliter placatur nobis Deus quam dum efficit novas creaturas in Christo, et spiritu suo nos regenerat”; Serm. 2 Sam 13:16, 188ff (SC 1.366). 16 See, e.g., III.iii.20 (OS 4.78); Comm. Isa 27:9 (CO 36.456); Comm. Jer 5:9 (CO 37.618); Comm. Dan 9:4 (CO 41.131); Comm. Zech 5:5–8 (CO 44.199). 17 Comm. Hosea 5:15 (CO 42.317): “Scimus enim poenitentia et fide nos reconciliari Deo, non quod poenitentia veniam nobis conciliet, sed quia necessario requiritir: est causa qua non, ut loquuntur.” This passage is especially interesting in two respects: first, Calvin includes both faith and repentance under reconciliation, whereas his normal usage is more restrictive; and second, he uses the term “cause” in the phrase est causa qua non, whereas ordinarily he prefers to reserve this term to describe justification. That he uses it here is owing, as he himself indicates, to common parlance. It simply means that repentance is indispensable to salvation.

176

Part 2

12.2 Free Justification and the Necessity of Good Works An interesting instance of Calvin’s understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification is reflected in his response to the accusation that justification by faith alone undercuts and removes any possible motive for good works. In his exposition of the “twofold grace of God,” Calvin generally exhibits an awareness of alternative points of view, particularly those espoused by the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Though we have not devoted any special attention to these alternative views of Calvin’s contemporaries in our study, his response to this accusation is of interest here since it attests his desire not only to differentiate his viewpoint from that of medieval Catholicism, but also to meet wherever possible the objections brought against it. Though it is sometimes insufficiently acknowledged—as is true, for example, of his doctrine of double justification—Calvin frequently aims to achieve a measure of agreement with those who differ in their conception of justification and attempts to meet the legitimate concerns that alternative views may express. Despite his often harsh and unrelenting polemic, Calvin remains anxious to indicate where his position answers the criticisms brought against it. A striking example of this is his discussion of the criticism that free justification cheapens the grace of God. Calvin is well aware that there are those who believe that justification by faith undermines the necessity of good works. For example, in his Institutes III.xvi.1, he notes that there are certain impious persons who slanderously charge us with abolishing good works, and with seducing men from the pursuit of them, when we say that men are not justified by works and do not merit salvation by them; and again, charge us with making the path to righteousness too easy when we teach that justification lies in free remission of sins; and, by this enticement, with luring into sin men who are already too much inclined to it of their own accord.18

For those who espouse this charge, Calvin’s understanding of justification provides an occasion for an indolent and licentious response to God’s grace, since it teaches that justification is a free gift of God’s grace in Christ and rules out the thought of merit. If this doctrine were true, then what motive or inducement remains to motivate us in the performance of good works? Calvin’s teaching, according to this charge, represents too easy and cheap a path to salvation. In his consideration of this charge, Calvin appeals directly to his own understanding of the “twofold grace of God,” and argues that it provides a 18 III.xvi.1 (OS 4.248). Cf. Comm. Acts 6:14 (CO 48.126); Comm. 1 John 2:1 (CO 55.308); Comm. 1 John 2:12 (CO 55.316).

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

177

ready solution to the alleged problem. Those who bring this charge against him simply fail to comprehend what it means to speak of justification and sanctification as two distinct, yet inseparable, parts of God’s grace in Christ. In particular, they fail to appreciate the reason these benefits must be distinguished conceptually, as well as the implication this distinction has for determining the proper motive for good works. In the first part of his answer to this objection against his doctrine, Calvin merely reiterates his position on the relation of justification and sanctification. It forms no part of his purpose to teach a “faith devoid of good works or a justification that stands without them.”19 He intends only to teach that, however much good works necessarily spring from faith, faith alone justifies us when it “grasps the righteousness of Christ, by which alone we are reconciled.”20 He does not intend to teach that this faith which justifies is ever alone: Yet you could not grasp this [the righteousness of Christ] without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he “is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption.” Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and invariable bond […].21

Since Christ contains both of these gifts inseparably within himself, and since he cannot be divided into pieces, […] he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.22

Though Calvin does indeed distinguish between them (inter se distinguamus licet),23 he does so, not in order to allow a justification without works, but in order to strip works of that property falsely ascribed to them by his critics, the property of justifying.24 Contrary to the charge of these critics, 19 III.xvi.1 (OS 4.248): “Non enim aut fidem somniamus bonis operibus vacuam, aut iustificationem quae sine iis constet.” 20 III.xvi.1 (OS 4.249). 21 III.xvi.1 (OS 4.249): “Nullum ergo Christus iustificat quem non simul sanctifcet. Sunt enim perpetuo et individuo nexu coniuncta haec beneficia […].” 22 III.xvi.1 (OS 4.249): “[…] utrunque simul largitur: alterum nunquan sine altero. Ita liquet quam verum sit nos non sine operibus, neque tamen per opera iustificari: quoniam in Christi participatione, qua iustificamur non minus sanctificatio continetur quam iustitia.” 23 III.xvi.1 (OS 4.249). 24 Comm. Phil 3:8 (CO 52.48): “Nos quoque non adversus operum substantian disputamus, quum tractamus de iustitia fidei: sed adversus illam qualitatem quam illis imponunt sophistae, quod illis homines iustificari contendunt. Se igitur spoliavit Paulus non operibus, sed perversa fiducia operum, qua fuerat inflatus.”

178

Part 2

Calvin insists that he does not attack the substance of works. Consistently throughout his writings, he emphasizes the necessity of repentance, the fear of God, and newness of life.25 Besides reiterating his insistence upon the inseparability of justification and sanctification, Calvin also answers this charge with the suggestion that his opponents, not he, have misled and confused their followers. By teaching that our justification depends upon the righteousness of works, and by placing our confidence before God in the quality of our obedience, they deny to their followers that peace of conscience before God that derives from an exclusive focus upon his mercy.26 If, in order to provide for such peace of conscience before God, they lessen the severity of God’s law or think that anything less than perfect righteousness satisfies his just requirements of us, they make themselves guilty of the very charge brought against him. Those who choose to boast of their “wretched satisfactions,” but whose lives are very far from that perfect righteousness which alone can stand before God’s tribunal, may not be absolved of the charge of cheapening the grace of God.27 For his part, Calvin maintains, far from cheapening God’s grace and “inviting men to sin,” he wants only to emphasize the costliness of Christ’s exclusive work in justification, which alone serves as the foundation for salvation: Now for us indeed it [forgiveness] is free, but not so for Christ, who clearly bought it at the cost of his most sacred blood, apart from which there was no ransom of sufficient worth to satisfy God’s judgment.28

In at least two respects, then, critics who bring this charge have misled their own followers. They deprive their followers of any real peace of conscience before God, and they teach falsely that something less than Christ’s costly redemption will satisfy God’s judgment.

25 Comm. Jude 4 (CO 55.490). Cf. Comm. Acts 11:18 (CO 48.258); Comm. 1 John 1:9 (CO 55.307); Comm. Matt 11:29 (CO 45.321–2). 26 Comm. Gal 5:1 (CO 50.243). 27 III.xvi.4 (OS 4.252–3): “Nunc palam est utri et viliorem peccatorum remissionem faciant, et iustitiae dignitatem magis prostituant. Illi Deum frivolis suis satisfactionibus, hoc est stercordibus, placari nugantur.” Admittedly, here and elsewhere Calvin utilizes an argumentum ad hominem, suggesting that those who boast of their good works before God ought to examine them a bit more carefully. Nonetheless, it does focus the issue between himself and those who bring this charge, and indicates the extent to which Calvin appeals to God’s judgment in the light of which our works are exposed. Cf. Comm. 1 Tim 1:9 (CO 52.255); Comm. Jude 4 (CO 55.490); Comm. Phil 2:13 (CO 52.33). 28 III.xvi.4 (OS 4.252). Cf. Serm. sur la Prophetie de Jesus Christ (CO 35.626): “Or cependant nous avons aussi a noter que ceste remission n’a pas este gratuite quant a la personne de nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ, par elle lui a cousté bien cher.”

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

179

Perhaps the most telling point in his refutation of this charge, however, is Calvin’s consideration of what motivates our repentance. While his opponents presume that we must speak of works in connection with justification in order to exclude an indolent response to God’s grace in Christ, Calvin responds by claiming that this seriously skews our understanding of the true motive for good works. If his opponents were correct in this presumption, then the relation between God and his people would be a mercenary relation. It would be built upon an attitude of distrust in God’s mercy, and would express itself in “some kind of forced obedience by fear.”29 Works motivated by the thought of reward are not deserving of praise, nor are they pleasing to God: For if it is only a matter of men looking for reward when they serve God, and hiring and selling their labor to him, it is of little profit. God wills to be freely worshipped, freely loved. That worshipper, I say, he approves who, when all hope of receiving reward has been cut off, still ceases not to love him.30

The charge of Calvin’s opponents assumes that the mercy of God is an insufficient motive for good works, and so they substitute a motive of their own which, by stressing the idea of merit, “forces out some slavish and coerced observances of the law.”31 Calvin, on the other hand, wishes to conform his teaching to that of the apostles, who “derive their most powerful exhortations from the thought that our salvation stands upon no merit of ours but solely upon God’s mercy.”32 For the apostles, the fear that leads to repentance is founded upon God’s free pardon, and so they understand trust in God’s mercy to be the true beginning of honoring God aright.33 For ex29 Comm. Rom 12:1 (CO 49.233). 30 III.xvi.2 (OS 4.249): “Si enim hoc tantum agitur ut homines mercedem spectent quum Deo serviunt, et illi suas operas locent aut vendant, parum proficitur; gratis coli vult, gratis amari: hunc, inquam, cultorem probat, qui praecisa omni spe recipiendae mercedis, colere tamen eum non desinat.” 31 III.xvi.3 (OS 4.251): “Verum isti quia servilia forte aliqua coactaque Legis obsequia ingerendis meritis extundunt, mentiuntur nos nihil habere quo ad bona opera exhortemur, quia non eaden ingredinur via.” 32 III.xvi.3 (OS 4.251): “Quin potius inde potissimas ducunt exhortationes, quod nullo nostro merito, sola Dei misericordia stet nostra salus.” 33 III.xvi.3 (OS 4.252): “Quod apprime notatu dignum est, ut sciamus non modo principium Dei rite colendi esse fiduciam misericordiae eius, sed timorem Dei (quem meritorium esse volunt Papistae) ideo non posse meriti nomine censeri quia fundatus est in peccatorum venia et remission.” In this passage, as well as in others cited in this section and in our earlier discussion of the timor Dei, Calvin breaks with the idea of an initium poenitentiae or of a repentance induced by fear of judgment and sorrow for sin. Clearly, his basic understanding of the motive for repentance is that gratitude is sufficient. Justification sola fide rather than undermining good works, sets them upon a proper footing; all thought of reward and merit springs from mistrust and infidelity toward God, from the original sin of denying his goodness and mercy toward us, however undeserving we might be.

180

Part 2

ample, the apostle Paul “in order to bind us to God not by servile fear but by a voluntary and cheerful love of righteousness, attracts us by the sweetness of that grace in which our salvation consists.”34 Far then from undermining the necessity of good works, Calvin extols the only motive that genuinely makes us obedient children, God’s benevolence in not imputing to us our sins.35 In Calvin’s understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification, the necessity of good works is not undercut; for he always insists upon the inseparability of these gifts. What is undercut is the suggestion that our works can satisfy God’s judgment, and the corollary suggestion that such works complete Christ’s costly redemption. In Calvin’s conception of the relation between justification and sanctification, the good works of God’s children are not extorted by the promise of a reward, but they represent the free obedience of faith in reciprocating the Father’s love in Christ. Knowing themselves to be God’s children through free adoption, those whom God justifies act accordingly, in a manner consistent with what might be expected of children who know his paternal goodness and love. For such children, the recognition of God’s gratuitous mercy alone, not precepts and sanctions, leads to repentance.36

12.3 James and Paul on Justification The issue of the compatibility of the respective teachings of the apostles, James and Paul, was a commonplace in sixteenth-century discussions of God’s grace. The question was often raised whether the Reformers’ doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith was consistent with James’ doctrine of justification by works. For many of their theological opponents, the apparently insuperable difference between the Reformers’ teaching and that of James was decisive evidence against the teaching of the major Reformers. 34 Comm. Rom 12:1 (CO 49.233): “Paulus autem ut Deo nos non servili metu, sed voluntario hilarique iustitiae amore devinciat, eius gratiae, qua continetur nostra salus, dulcedine nos allicit.” 35 Comm. 1 John 2:12 (CO 55.316); Comm. 1 John 2:1 (CO 55.308); Comm. Acts 6:14 (CO 48.126). 36 Comm. Rom 12:1 (CO 49.234): “[…] quum nullis praeceptis, nullis sanctionibus sic pia mens ad obsequium Dei formetur, ut seria divinae in se bonitas meditatione.” Passages such as this are of critical importance for interpreting Calvin’s understanding of the law’s role in the Christian life. The degree of significance one attributes to this sort of statement will determine whether his appropriation of the law as a guide for the Christian life necessarily commits him to a “legalistic” and “externalistic” ethics, as is often alleged (particularly by Lutheran interpreters). We will have occasion to consider the relation of law and gospel in the following chapter.

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

181

Luther’s treatment of this issue and question is well known. Since Paul’s doctrine of justification represents the normative and best expression of the substance of the gospel, and since it is contradicted by James, we must decide this issue in favor of Paul’s teaching and discard the Epistle of James as a “strawy” epistle.37 Calvin, in contrast to Luther, follows a different course: the teachings of Paul and James are fully compatible, so long as we pay careful attention to their respective concerns and to the distinct meanings they attribute to the terms “faith” and “justify.”38 A sound and circumspect resolution of the question of the compatibility of their respective teachings depends upon a proper construal of the relation between justification and sanctification. For Calvin, those who posit an irreconcilable difference between James’ teaching and the Reformers’ interpretation of Paul are guilty of falling into a “double fallacy” (duplicem paralogismus).39 First, they fail to distinguish between two senses of the term “faith.” Whereas for Paul faith is always joined with good works and is active in love, James uses “faith” in quite another sense when he argues that faith alone cannot justify. By faith, James means “an empty boast of the word,”40 “a belief that there is a God,”41 or “a bare and empty awareness of God.”42 Such faith, James quite rightly insists, does not justify, since it is a feigned and inactive thing. 37 For a summary and evaluation of Luther’s diverse comments on the epistle of James, see Timothy George, “‘A Right Strawy Epistle’: Reformation Perspectives on James,” Review & Expositor 83 (1986): 369–82. George concludes that Luther’s emphasis upon justification was “one-sided” and prevented him from granting a “more positive reception” to James, as was true of Calvin and the Reformed tradition. 38 III.xvii. 11 (OS 4.264): “If they consider James a minister of Christ, his statement must be so understood as not to disagree with Christ speaking through Paul’s lips.” Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.729): “Or il est certain toutesfois que S. Iaques qui a parlé par 1’Esprit de Dieu, n’est point contrevenant à la doctrine qui a esté preschee et publiee dés le commencement en 1’Eglise, qui a esté ratifiee par les Prophetes, et que finalement a esté encores mieux confermee en nostre Seigneur Iesus Christ et par ses Apostres.” Statements such as these have often led to the charge that Calvin’s understanding of Scripture’s authority is “formal” in character, and that he “biblicistically” tries to reconcile all of its teachings, however incompatible they might be. Though it is true that Calvin attempts to reconcile what appear to him to be superficial differences, it should be borne in mind that, if it were impossible to do so, he would not hesitate to choose for justification by faith alone and cast aside, in this case, the epistle of James. For example, he reserves for himself the right to reject the authority of Ecclesiastes, if it be shown to teach the merit of works or something contrary to the indubitatem Dei verum. See II.v.18 (OS 3.318); III.xv.4 (OS 4.242). 39 III.xvii.11 (OS 4.265). 40 Comm. James 2:14 (CO 55.403) “[…] inane fidei nomen.” 41 III.xvii.11 (OS 4.265) “[…] ut credatur Deum esse.” 42 Comm. James 2:23 (CO 55.407) “[…] nuda et inani cognitione Dei.” Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.729): “Mais la solution est bien facile quand nous regarderons “à l’intention de S. Iaques: car il ne dispute point là que peut la vraye foy, et ne parle point du tout de la foy vraye, mais dune foy feinte et qui n’a autre chose qu’une image qui trompe et une illusion.”

182

Part 2

Those who see a contradiction between this insistence of James and the Reformers’ doctrine of justification sola fide simply fail to appreciate the significance of this difference in usage between James and Paul on the term “faith.” On the basis of their false distinction between an “unformed” and a “formed” faith, they interpret the Reformers to teach that we are justified by an unformed faith, or a faith that is not active in love and good works. Calvin replies, however, that this is neither his nor the apostle Paul’s understanding. Though faith alone justifies, in the sense that works are not the reason for our justification, such faith is never alone or “unformed.”43 Second, those who argue for the incompatibility of the Reformers’ teaching with that of James fail to see that James’ argument, unlike Paul’s, does not concern the ground or cause but the “demonstration” or “proof” of justification.44 For James, the “question is not how men may attain righteousness for themselves in the presence of God, but how they may prove to others that they are justified.”45 In this respect, James is directing his teaching to a different problem than the one that confronted Paul. To interpret properly the respective teaching of James and Paul, this difference must be taken into consideration. As Calvin notes, James “is not taking up the matter of the cause of our justification, but only the worth and the place we should allow to a profession of faith without works.”46 Unlike Paul, who confronts those who boast of and place their confidence in good works, James is confronting those who make an empty boast of faith and teach a justification by a feigned or dead faith. James correctly repudiates this boast 43 Comm. James 2:14 (CO 55.403); Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.729–30). Here, as in so many instances, the dispute between Calvin and his opponents rests to some extent upon a difference in terminology and definition. When his opponents conceive of justification sola fide, they assume Calvin is speaking of a faith which is alone or inactive in love; this assumption, however, assumes another which Calvin finds unwarranted, namely, that we may speak of an “unformed faith” which is preparatory to a “formed faith” by the infusion of God’s grace. Cf. Comm. Gal 5:6 (CO 50.246–7): “Neque enim fidem, quae iustificat, docemus solam esse: sed bonis operibus perpetuo coniunctam esse asserimus. Tantum contendimus ad iustificandum solam valere. Papistae ipsi, carnificum instar, fidem misere lacerant, quum nunc informen faciunt et caritate vacuam, nunc formatam. Nos autem veram fidem negamus a spiritu regenerationis posse divelli.” In a sense, Ganoczy, when he finds a temporal distinction between justification and sanctification in Calvin’s thought, makes the same error. Cf. Ganoczy, Calvin, 105. 44 III.xviii.12 (OS 4.266); Comm. Rom 3:28 (CO 49.66); Comm. James 2:20–21 (CO 55.405–6); Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.731–2). 45 Comm. Rom 3:28 (CO 49.66): “Neque enim quaestio est, quomodo iustitian sibi coram Deo acquirant homines: sed quomodo se probent iustos.” Cf. Serm. sur la Justification (CO 23.732): “Mais il parle d’estre iustifié, c’est à dire, d’estre declairé iuste. Car ces gaudisseurs contre lesquels il combat, disoyent, Nous sommes iustifiez par foy. Qu’avons-nous donce que faire de nous employer au service de Dieu, et d’estre en grand souci, veu que nos oeuvres ne valent rien, et elles ne viendront point aussi bien en conte pour l’advenir.” 46 Comm. James 2:20 (CO 55.405): “Neque enim hic disceptatio est de iustificationis causa: sed tantum quid valeat, et quo loco habenda sit fidei professio sine operibus.”

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

183

of justification through an unformed faith that is not active in bearing fruit, and rightly insists that faith become demonstrable in love. When these points are borne in mind, and the different occasions for the respective emphases of Paul and James are appreciated, the teaching of both apostles will be seen not only as compatible, but as wholly agreeable in substance. Paul’s doctrine of justification sola fide is directed against those who teach a justification on the basis of works. For this reason, Paul deprives works of the property of justifying, though he everywhere insists that the faith that justifies is living and active in good works. James’ doctrine, on the other hand, is directed against those who put forth an empty show of faith. Consequently, James points to the example of Abraham, and declares that he was justified by works. Though it is undoubtedly possible to twist James’ words to mean a justification grounded upon works, their true meaning expresses two things: first, that “an empty show of faith does not justify”; and second, that “a believer, not content with such an image, declares his righteousness by good works.”47 Neither of these contradicts Calvin’s understanding of Paul’s doctrine of justification sola fide. Nor do they conflict with his doctrine of the distinct, yet inseparable, relation between justification and sanctification.

12.4 Covenant and Kingdom There remain two further instances in Calvin’s theology where the “twofold grace of God” is developed and articulated. Both in his understanding of the covenant and of the kingdom of God, Calvin refers to justification and sanctification as constituting their two principal parts. Though this is not the place to discuss Calvin’s doctrine of the covenant or of the kingdom in anything approaching a complete fashion,48 Calvin’s use of the “twofold grace of God” in connection with each of them further confirms our interpretation of his understanding of God’s grace in Christ. In his articulation of the doctrine of covenant, Calvin primarily emphasizes its source in God’s gratuitous favor or mercy. For Calvin, all the promises of God (whether under the old or new covenant) are founded upon his free mercy and are evidences of his paternal love toward and gracious 47 III.xviii.12 (OS 4.266): “Ergo quoslibet in modos Iacobi verba torqueant, nihil praeter duas sententias expriment, Inane fidei spectrum non iustificare, et fidelem, tali imaginatione non contentum, operibus bonis suam iustitiam declarare.” 48 For a comprehensive treatment of Calvin’s view of the covenant, see Lillback, The Binding of God. For shorter summaries of Calvin’s view of the covenant, see Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching,” CTJ 2/2 (1967): 133–61; and Opitz, Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik, 202–25.

184

Part 2

adoption of his people. For this reason, he argues that “promises are related to the covenant as their only source, in the same way as the special help, by which God declares his love to believers, flows from the one and only foundation of election.”49 However much the old and new dispensations may differ, they “substantially” agree50 in everywhere ascribing the cause of this adoption to the Father’s gratuitous favor, a favor which has been definitively exhibited to us in Christ.51 In his treatment of the promises of God, Calvin never fails to affirm that Christ is their irrevocable seal and accomplishment. It is “only in Christ that God the Father is graciously inclined towards us […]. Thus it follows that they [God’s promises] are fulfilled only in Christ.”52 All of God’s good promises, and the substance of his covenant with the fathers in the old covenant, are manifested in and receive their seal in Christ.53 Particularly when we speak of the “chief of all God’s promises,” our adoption as his children, Christ is the one of whom we must speak, for he is the “cause or root” of that adoption (causa et radix adoptionis).54 When Calvin attempts to define the covenant of grace, he initially places most of his emphasis upon its basis in God’s free adoption of his people. He frequently refers to Christ as the Mediator in whom all of God’s promises are fulfilled, especially the central promise of adoption. In this respect, the covenant of God is eternal and inviolate. It represents a “perpetual” pledge that God makes to his people, that he will be their God and that his faithfulness will stand firm despite their unfaithfulness.55 Therefore, the covenant of grace that God makes with his people substantially agrees with his redemption in Christ, and has, as is true of the gospel, gratuitous reconciliation for its “principal” blessing.56 49 Comm. Rom 9:4 (CO 49.173): “[…] promissiones ad pactum, tanquam ad unicum caput referri: sicuti specialia Dei auxilia, quibus favorem suum Deus erga fideles testatur, ex unico electionis fonte manant.” 50 E.g., Comm. Gal 4:1 (CO 52.224–5): “All this leads to the conclusion that the difference between us and the ancient fathers lies not in substance but in accidents (non in substantia esse, sed in accidentibus). In all the chief points of the testament or covenant we agree.” 51 See, e.g., III.xxi.5 (OS 4.373–6); Comm. Mal 1:2–6 (CO 44.395–6); Comm. Amos 3:1, 2 (CO 43.37); Comm. Acts 7:32 (CO 48.146); Comm. Acts 13:16 (CO 48.289); Comm. Eph 2:12 (CO 51.169). 52 Comm. 2 Cor 1:20 (CO 50.22–3). 53 Comm. Luke 1:72 (CO 55.48). 54 Comm. 2 Cor 1:20 (CO 50.22–3). 55 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 11:1 (CO 49.211); Comm. Rom 11:2 (CO 49.212); Comm. Ps 89:35 (CO 31.824); Comm. Gen 17:7 (CO 23.238); Comm. Exod 3:15 (CO 24.45); Comm. Jer 31:31, 32 (CO 38.688); Comm. Ezek 16:62 (CO 40.397); Comm. Ezek 16:60 (CO 40.393); Comm. Josh Argumentum (CO 25.423). 56 E.g., Comm. Ps 143:2 (CO 32.401): “Sed quum praecipuum aeterni foederis caput aloleant de gratuita reconciliatione […].” Comm. Luke 1:6 (CO 45.10): “[…] foedus […] primum caput est gratuita reconciliatio.”

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

185

Since Calvin places so much emphasis upon the covenant as God’s gratuitous adoption of his people, and since he also maintains that this covenant excludes every thought of merit, being given prior to and without the law,57 some interpreters of Calvin’s theology have insisted that his basic conception is that of an unconditional and unilateral relation between God and his people. According to these interpreters, Calvin emphasizes the covenant’s source in God’s paternal favor and electing love to such a degree that he is unable to do justice to the covenant as a mutual relation, which requires reciprocal obligations from its members if it is to be sustained. A recent exponent of this interpretation, J. Wayne Baker, has argued that Calvin subordinates his doctrine of the covenant to his doctrine of double predestination, the consequence of which is a doctrine of God’s unconditional “testament” rather than of his “conditional covenant” with his people.58 Whether this interpretation is valid, however, depends upon establishing at least the following two points: first, that Calvin systematically coordinates his doctrines of predestination and covenant in the manner that Baker suggests; and second, that his references to the “two parts” of the covenant, God’s free mercy and the Spirit of sanctification, do not express a genuinely bilateral or mutual relationship between God and his people. With respect to the first of these points, it is not at all clear that any such systematic coordination is to be found in Calvin’s theology. But more importantly, with respect to the second point, it does seem clear that Calvin recognizes a genuine sense in which we may speak of the covenant’s obligations or conditions. According to Calvin, there is no inconsistency between emphasizing the covenant’s foundation in God’s free initiative and affirming that this initiative finds its counterpart in the obligation that its members be reformed in newness of life. Just as the grace of God in Christ consists of both free justification and sanctification, so also the covenant, which is fulfilled in Christ, consists of two members or parts. The “spiritual covenant that God has made for the salvation of his church rests on these two members alone: ‘I shall write my law upon their hearts,’ and, ‘I shall be merciful toward 57 Comm. Deut 9:5 (CO 24.235); Comm. Amos 3:1, 2 (CO 43.37–8); Comm. Gal 3:6 (CO 50.206); Comm. Gal 3:17 (CO 50.213–4). 58 Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980), Appendix B: “Covenant and Testament in Calvin’s Thought,” 193– 8. For critical assessments of Baker’s thesis, which argues that Calvin authored a Reformed tradition that emphasized sovereign election and Bullinger authored another tradition that emphasized conditional covenant, see Lillback, The Binding of God, 162–75; idem, “The Continuing Conundrum: Calvin and the Conditionality of the Covenant,” CTJ 29/1 (April, 1994): 42–74; and my Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002).

186

Part 2

their iniquity’.”59 This holds true for God’s covenant in both the old and new dispensations, as is evident from God’s covenant with Abraham, which was comprised of “two members” (bimembre fuisse Dei foedus cum Abram): The first was a declaration of gratuitous love, to which was annexed the promise of a happy life. But the other was an exhortation to a sincere endeavour to cultivate uprightness […].60

While the second part of God’s covenant rests upon the first and can in no respect be construed as a meritorious condition, Calvin commonly insists the covenant includes both free adoption and the conversion of its members. When God graciously promises his people, “I shall be your God,” inherent in that promise is the corollary, “you shall be my people.” The content of the covenant, accordingly, is comprised under two headings, as is true of the gospel. Whereas the first or principal heading is God’s free adoption, the “cause and purpose” of this adoption is that “men might glorify his name in godly and holy living.”61 What one finds upon close examination of Calvin’s doctrine of the covenant, is that he does indeed speak of it in terms of a mutual and reciprocal relation between God and his people. In a manner consistent with his doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” he argues that this covenant is conditioned upon the transformation of its members, however incongruent this be with any notion of merit or of a covenant based upon our initiative rather than God’s. One way in which Calvin expresses this mutuality in describing the covenant is by his use of the metaphor of marriage. When Scripture uses this metaphor in defining the covenant, it does so in order to emphasize its requirement of “mutual fidelity” (mutua fide):62 This comparison often occurs in Scripture, when the Lord wants to express the holy bond of adoption by which he unites us with himself (sacrum adoptionis vinculum, quo nos sibi coniungit). For as he offers himself to be truly enjoyed by us and to be ours, so he justly demands of us the mutual fidelity and love that a wife owes her husband (fidem a nobis et caritatem mutuam stipulator, quam uxor marito debet). Moreover, this marriage was in every respect fulfilled in Christ, whose flesh and bones we are, as Paul teaches.63 59 III.xx.45 (OS 4.359): “[…] quemadmodum his tantum duobus membris constat spirituale foedus quod Deus in salutem Ecclesiae suae pepigit, Leges meas inscribam cordibus ipsorum, et propitius ero eorum iniquitati.” 60 Comm. Gen 17:2 (CO 23.235). Cf. Comm. Gen 17:3 (CO 23.235): “Meminerimus ergo uno et eodem fidei complexu gratuitam adoptionem, in qua salus nostra posita est, cum vitae novitate iungendam esse.” Comm. Matt 6:12 (CO 45.200): “[…] duo sunt praecipua capita divini foederis.” 61 Comm. Luke 1:73 (CO 45.49): “Sicuti ergo efficiens humanae salutis causa fuit gratuita Dei bonitas, ita finalis est ut homines pie sancteque vivendo nomen eius glorificent.” 62 II.viii.18 (OS 3.360). Cf. IV.xiv.19 (OS 5.277); Serm. Deut 4:44–5:3 (CO 26.236). 63 Comm. John 3:29 (CO 47.71). Cf. Comm. 2 Cor 11:3 (CO 50.124): “[…] ita spirituale inter nos et filium Dei coniugium evangelio, tanquam tabulis, sancitum est. Fidem, amorem,

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

187

Furthermore, Calvin notes that, though we are called to the privilege of adoption, the sole basis for the assurance of God’s favor, “[…] we are adopted on the ground that he should have us as his obedient children.”64 When God initiates his covenant with us by freely forgiving our sins, he also, by that act of forgiveness, makes the claim upon us that we belong to him.65 And so it may be termed a “universal principle” that those whom God calls and adopts must respond by showing themselves to be truly his children.66 God says to them, “Be holy, as I am holy, who dwell in the midst of you.”67 In each of these ways, Calvin believes that it is permissible and necessary to speak of the covenant as a bilateral and mutual relationship, provided that the two parts of the covenant are distinguished and not causally related. In his promises God takes the initiative and anticipates us by his pure grace (mera quidem sua gratia nos anticipat), but having thus freely granted us his grace, he immediately requires of us gratitude in return (continuo post stipulatur a nobis mutuam gratitudinem). When he said to Abraham, “I am thy God,” that was an offer of his free undeserved kindness, but he added at the same time this demand (Stipulationem tamen simul addebat), “Walk before me and be thou perfect.” Since this second clause is not always explicit, Paul tells us that this condition is implied in all God’s promises (hanc subesse conditionem universis promissionibus) so that they should urge us on to promote God’s glory.68

There would seem, then, to be little reason to deny Calvin’s understanding of the covenant as a reciprocal and mutual relationship between God and his people. Though the conditions of the covenant are non-meritorious, they are still genuine or real conditions. When compared with this doctrine of the covenant, Calvin’s doctrine of the kingdom of God does not constitute as clear an instance of his use of the “twofold grace of God.” Nevertheless, there are several aspects of his view of the kingdom that may serve to clarify his understanding of the “twofold grace of God” in Christ, particularly the aspect of sanctification in relation to justification. In an earlier chapter on the work of Christ as Mediator, we noted that Calvin develops his doctrine of the kingdom primarily in connection with obedientiam, quam illic stipulatur a nobis, servemus: ipse mutuo nobis fidelis erit.” Also cf. Comm. Hosea 5:7 (CO 42.305); Comm. Mal 2:5 (CO 44.434). 64 Comm. 1 Peter 1:14 (CO 55.221). Cf. Comm. Matt 22:11 (CO 45.401); Comm. Heb 8:10 (CO 55.102–3). 65 Comm. 1 Peter 2:9 (CO 55.243). Cf. Comm. 1 Peter 1:15 (CO 55.222). 66 Comm. 1 Thess 2:12 (CO 52.150): “It now remains for us to respond to God’s call, i.e., to show ourselves to be such children to him as he is a Father to us.” Cf. Comm. 1 Peter 1:14 (CO 55.221). 67 Comm. 2 Peter 1:18 (CO 55.454). 68 Comm. 2 Cor 7:1 (CO 50.83).

188

Part 2

Christ’s mediatorial reign, which is executed through the power and operation of the Spirit. This empire of Christ through his Spirit, which especially concerns the lives of those who embrace him by faith, presupposes and depends upon Calvin’s understanding of the Son as the One through whom the Father has always ruled and ordered his creation. Consequently, it is not surprising to find Calvin using political terminology to describe the nature of redemption in Christ. Redemption consists of God reasserting through Christ his kingly rule over and claim upon his rebellious creatures.69 God’s saving action in Christ may be comprehensively described in terms of God the Father, the Creator of and Ruler over all things, re-establishing his reign in the midst of human history through the work of Christ and through the operation of his Spirit. Assuming this comprehensive understanding, what concerns us here is Calvin’s specific claim that the “twofold grace of God”—especially its second part, sanctification—expresses the concrete manner in which this reign is redemptively administered and established. For Calvin, the kingdom of God may simply be defined as all we obtain in Christ. For example, when speaking of the ministry and message of John the Baptist, Calvin remarks: By proclaiming the kingdom of God, he was calling them to faith, for by the kingdom of God, which he taught was at hand, he meant the forgiveness, salvation, life, and utterly everything we obtain in Christ.70

The kingdom of God represents the totality of the Triune God’s gracious action in contravening the willful rebellion of his creatures and restoring his rightful place as their Lord. In this respect, the substantive meaning of the kingdom is wholly congruent with the meaning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and it consists of the double benefit of justification and sanctification: Now, indeed, because this kingdom brings us back from rebellion to be under obedience to God, and makes sons out of enemies, it consists first of all, of the free forgiveness of sins, by which God reconciles us to himself, and brings us into his people by adoption; and, secondly, of the renewal of life, by which he fashions us according to his own image.71

This means that the kingdom of God is redemptively expressed through the “administration of the gospel” (evangelii administratio).72 Christ, upon his 69 See Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 74ff, for an account of Calvin’s use of political descriptions of the incarnation and of God’s transcendence. 70 III.iii.19 (OS 4.76). 71 Comm. Acts 19:8 (CO 48.443): “Iam vero regnum hoc, quia nos a defectione sub Dei obsequium reducit, et ex inimicis facit filios: primum gratuita peccatorum remissione constat, qua nos sibi reconciliat Deus et adoptat in populum: deinde vitae renovatione, qua nos ad imaginem suam conformat.” 72 Comm. 1 Cor 4:20 (CO 49.375). For this reason, Calvin terms the gospel, when it is preached within the church and effective in the lives of its members, the “scepter” of Christ’s

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

189

resurrection and ascension, exercises his kingly office on our behalf, sharing with us all that he has received from the Father.73 Until his appearance and the final judgment, “which may also be properly considered the last act of his reign,” the Father wills to manifest his rule and establish its sway through him.74 Though Calvin describes the kingdom of God in these general terms and identifies it with the Triune God’s restoration of his reign through the gospel of Jesus Christ and his kingly office, more often he specifies its meaning by directly associating it with sanctification. Whereas the re-establishment of God’s rule through Christ presupposes the forgiveness of sins and the removal of a state of enmity between God and his rebellious creatures, it especially refers to the reassertion of God’s rule in the lives of those who are renewed by Christ through the Spirit of sanctification. Therefore, when Calvin interprets the precise significance of John the Baptist’s proclamation of the imminence of the kingdom, he not only refers, as in the passage cited above, to all that we obtain in Christ, but to the effect and purpose of free adoption—newness of life: So when John says the kingdom of God is at hand, he means that men, estranged from God and exiled from the kingdom of heaven, were again to be gathered in to God, to live under his hand. This is the effect of his free adoption and pardon for sin, by which he reconciles the unworthy to himself. All in all, the kingdom of heaven is simply newness of life, by which God restores us to the hope of blessed immortality.75

kingdom. See, e.g., Comm. Isa 11:4 (CO 36.240); Comm. Ezek 17:24 (CO 40.420); Comm. Hosea 1:11 (CO 42.221); Comm. Micah 4:1, 2 (CO 43.344). 73 II.xv.4 (OS 3.475). Thus, Calvin characteristically associates Christ’s exercise of his kingship, not so much with his general lordship over the whole creation (which he has never relinquished despite its rebellion), but with his redemptive Lordship through the gospel. This redemptive Lordship presupposes the first, but is particularly emphasized by Calvin in terms of the comfort it gives us in knowing that Christ rules for the sake of his people. Cf., e.g., Serm. sur l’Ascension de Nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ (CO 48.593): “[…] c’est une grande consolation pour nous que Iesus Christ, estant monté au ciel, ha toute authorité en sa main, et est par dessus toutes creatures, estant establi lieutenant de Dieu afin de gouverner tout et haut et bas. Or pour bien faire nostre profit de cela, notons que Iesus Christ, estant tellement exalté de Dieu que toutes creatures luy sont mises en suietion, cependant est nostre Chef, et que ceste grande domination et empire qu’il ha vient à nostre profit, voire si nous sommes ses membres.” 74 II.v.5 (OS 3.479). 75 Comm. Matt 3:2 (CO 45.11): “Ergo quum dicit Ioannes, regnum Dei appropinquasse, significat homines, qui alienati a iustitia Dei exsulabant a regno coelorum, rursum ad Deum colligendos, ut sub eius manu vivant. Hoc autem facit gratuita adoptio et peccatorun venia, qua sibi indignos reconciliat. In summa, regnum coelorum nihil aliud est quam vitae novitas, qua Deus nos instaurat in spem beatae imortalitatis.” Cf. Serm. Acts 1:1–4 (CO 48.588): “Mais S. Luc le [i.e., the kingdom of God] prend pour le gouvernement spirituel par lequel Iesus Christ nous tient en son obeissance, iusques à ce qu’il nous ait du tout reformez à son image, et que, nous ayans despouillez de ce corps mortel, il nous mette au ciel […]. Mais pour en avoir declaration plus facile, prenons le contraire du Royaume de Dieu; c’est la vie des hommes qui sont addonnez à leur

190

Part 2

The kingdom of God manifests itself wherever “men deny themselves and pledge themselves to God”;76 wherever there are those who by the Spirit of Christ are converted to God, so that he might rule over them. The kingdom of God, whose “scepter” is the Word of Christ, must be understood as “whatever aims at this, and is appointed for this purpose: that God may reign in our midst.”77 It is not only the comprehensive rule of God over the creation, which is administered by the eternal Son, that comprises the kingdom; rather, it is especially the concrete recognition of that reign in the lives of those claimed by the Spirit of sanctification that defines the nature of the kingdom in human history. In both his conception of the covenant of grace and the kingdom of God, Calvin appeals to the “twofold grace of God” as constituting their specific meaning and substance. Both the covenant, which denotes the idea of fellowship and mutual fidelity between God and his people, and the kingdom, which denotes the idea of God’s kingly rule over and claim upon those who belong to him, are based upon the gracious judgment of God in Christ, whereby he overlooks our sins and embraces us in him. Both are directed to the restoration and reformation of the lives of those who belong to God and acknowledge his reign. As such, they form alternative modes for articulating the redemptive relation of God toward his willfully rebellious creatures and utilize different metaphors that articulate our knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. They confirm the manifold character of God’s gracious being-toward-us, both in the way of free justification and Spiritempowered sanctification.

12.5 Summary Without attempting to summarize all aspects of the preceding discussion, we are in a position to draw some provisional conclusions on the question of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” and the relation of its two aspects, justification and sanctification. Calvin understands justification and sanctification to be the twofold effect or fruit of Christ’s redemptive work in us through the Spirit and by faith. Those who are incorporated into Christ through his Spirit, and who nature corrumpue […]. Car le Royaume de Dieu presuppose une reformation.” Also cf. Serm. Isa 16:5 (SC 2.118): Serm. 2 Sam 7:10, 11 (SC 1.186). 76 III.xx.42 (OS 4.352–3). This, Calvin argues, is the point of the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come.” 77 Comm. 1 Cor 4:20 (CO 49.375): “Quia Dominus verbo suo tanquam sceptro ecclesiam gubernat, saepe evangelii administratio regnum Dei vocatur. Hic ergo per regnum Dei intellige quidquid huc spectat, et ad hunc finem destinatur, ut inter nos regnet Deus.”

Instances of the “Twofold Grace of God”

191

are by faith persuaded of his grace and mercy, receive the assurance of free justification and are converted from death to newness of life. For Calvin, this incorporation into Christ and reception of his benefits depends wholly upon the redemptive office of Christ, the Mediator, and the effective operation of his Spirit. This means that both aspects of the gospel are inseparably and indissolubly bound together in the redemptive work of Christ and the indwelling power of the Spirit. In the final analysis, the unity of justification and sanctification is a unity in the ministry of Christ and the ministry of the Spirit. To juxtapose justification and sanctification would require a defective Christology, one in which our justification through the obedience and sacrifice of Christ is separated from the powerful exercise of his lordship through the Spirit. It would likewise involve a defective pneumatology, one in which the ministry of the Spirit in bringing us to faith is separated from the Spirit’s ministry in sanctifying us from within. In his articulation of this twofold grace or benefit, Calvin repeatedly utilizes the formula that justification and sanctification are “distinct, yet inseparable” aspects of the grace of God in Christ. They are distinct in conception, since they answer to different questions. Justification answers the question: how and on what basis are we acceptable to God? Whereas sanctification answers the question: what positive fruit is produced by the Spirit in the lives of those who trust in Christ alone for salvation? Nevertheless, justification and sanctification are inseparable, since they are but aspects of the work of Christ and the Spirit. To separate or juxtapose them would amount to a separation between Christ’s office as priest and king, or to a separation between Christ’s redemptive work pro nobis and in nobis. Therefore, rather than treating the relation between justification and sanctification in terms of dialectical juxtaposition, Calvin treats this relation in terms of the correlation that obtains between our free justification in Christ through faith and our sanctification through the Spirit. Though there are reasons these two aspects are conceptually irreducible, it is never permissible, according to Calvin, to speak of the one aspect without the other. To confuse conceptually justification and sanctification leads inevitably to a loss of the assurance of salvation and to a denial of Christ’s exclusive honor in justifying us. Yet, to separate justification and sanctification likewise leads to an unacceptable circumstance in which free justification becomes an occasion for a cheap appropriation of the grace of Christ without a corresponding transformation of life. This understanding of the unity and relation between justification and sanctification is formative for Calvin’s specific articulation of the issues we have considered in this chapter. Consistent with his general convictions regarding the distinction between the inseparable benefits of justification and sanctification, Calvin is able to speak of sanctification as an “effect” or “secondary cause” of justification. He also is

192

Part 2

able to resolve the apparent difference between the teaching of James and Paul on justification. Furthermore, when he defines the nature of the covenant and kingdom of God, Calvin makes consistent use of the “twofold grace of God” as a pattern for understanding the covenant’s promises and obligations, as well as the gracious yet transformative nature of the kingdom.

PART THREE

THE “TWOFOLD GRACE OF GOD” AND INTERPRETIVE ISSUES IN CALVIN’S THEOLOGY

13. The Trinitarian and Christological Basis of the “Twofold Grace of God”

To interpret adequately Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God,” it is important not only to determine its theological setting and nature, especially as articulated in Book III of the Institutes, but also to pursue its implications for several disputed features of his theology. Now that we have considered Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God,” particularly the relation between justification and sanctification, we can discuss its implications for some of the debates regarding the interpretation of Calvin’s theology. In our introductory review of the secondary literature, we noted that different approaches to the content and form of Calvin’s thought have been reflected in different interpretations of the “twofold grace of God.” Some interpreters of Calvin, who maintain that his theology is logically deduced from a central principle like God’s sovereignty, claim that the “twofold grace of God” is subordinate to this principle. Other interpreters of Calvin, who insist that the distinctive feature of his theology is its dialectical form, maintain that Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God” illustrates the general form of his theology. Calvin’s treatment of justification and sanctification, for example, is often viewed as an instance of his dialectical juxtaposition of incompatible themes. The formal structure of Calvin’s theology allegedly accounts for his particular view of the relation between justification and sanctification as well as his development of closely related themes, such as the relation of law and gospel or the question of the assurance of salvation. In order to complete our interpretation of Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God” and to address the implications it has for the interpretation of his theology, we will begin in this chapter by returning to the issues of the unity and basic subject matter of Calvin’s theology. In subsequent chapters, we will consider the way Calvin’s conception of the “twofold grace of God” informs his doctrine of the church and sacraments, his doctrine of the law and gospel, and his position on the so-called “practical syllogism” (syllogismus practicus). Each of these subjects is closely connected to Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God.” Our consideration of them will complete our exposition of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” and contribute to a resolution of several broader questions relating to the interpretation of his theology. After we have addressed

196

Part 3

these subjects, we will draw several conclusions regarding the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God” within the framework of Calvin’s theology. In this chapter we will recap our argument that Calvin’s theology is governed by his understanding of the knowledge of the Triune God as Creator and Redeemer and of ourselves as his redeemed creatures. This general understanding of the knowledge of God informs each of Calvin’s doctrinal perspectives and provides a basis for their unity. This chapter’s aim will be to consider further the claim that Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” is based upon his comprehensive understanding of the knowledge of God. In order to accomplish this purpose, we will summarize the argument that has surfaced at various points in the preceding chapters. This summary will then serve as a framework for the remainder of our treatment of the significance of the “twofold grace of God” and other disputed features of Calvin’s theology.

13.1 The Trinitarian Basis for the “Twofold Grace of God” In our exposition of the “twofold grace of God,” reference was made on several occasions to the Trinitarian scope and structure of Calvin’s theology. Without a proper recognition of these elements, the relative importance and nature of his doctrine of justification and sanctification will not be correctly interpreted. The doctrine of justification and sanctification expresses the twofold manner in which the Triune God’s redemptive action in Christ through the office of the Spirit radically affects those who embrace the gospel promise by faith. We also noted that, for Calvin, God’s gracious work in Christ represents the Triune God’s faithfulness to his creative purpose, since it reestablishes his claim upon and rule over his willfully disobedient creatures. In order to properly interpret Calvin’s understanding of the twofold benefit of God’s grace in Christ, it is necessary to locate it within the general theological setting of his emphasis upon the identity between the Creator and the Redeemer, and his arrangement of his theology according to the three Articles of the Creed. Part of our purpose in focusing upon the question of the broader theological setting for Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” was to lay a foundation for adjudicating the dispute over what forms the distinctive subject matter of Calvin’s theology. Specifically, it was our purpose to suggest an alternative resolution of this question to that given by several interpreters of the “twofold grace of God.” While the “twofold grace of God” has been cited as an example of Calvin’s systematic coordination and deduction of various doctrines from a single principle, or as an example of his formal and dialectical juxtaposition of mutually incompatible ideas, our

The Trinitarian and Christological Basis

197

analysis indicates that it is better understood as a particular doctrinal perspective upon the knowledge of the Triune God, which is based upon the revealed economy of redemption. Though the benefits of God’s grace in Christ, particularly justification and sanctification, are conceptually distinct, they are united within the one complex reality of the Triune God’s saving work. To this extent, we have concurred with Niesel’s claim that the content of Calvin’s theology is determined by the gracious action and revelation of God in Christ. The distinction between justification and sanctification gives theological expression to the two benefits of God’s grace in Christ, but they are not reducible to a single formative idea from which Calvin’s theology as a whole is deduced. Calvin’s theology aims throughout to conform to the revelation of the Triune God as Creator and Redeemer, and this is illustrated by his specific doctrine of the “twofold grace of God.” Yet, unlike Niesel, who tends to identify the whole content of the knowledge of God in Calvin’s theology with redemption in Christ, our exposition identifies it in terms of Calvin’s more comprehensive and Trinitarian development of the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. The point of departure for Calvin’s theology is Trinitarian and Christological, and this is confirmed throughout his exposition of the “twofold grace of God.” Though there is a genuine sense in which Calvin’s theology may be termed “Christocentric,” a theology of revelation and redemption in Christ, the redemptive focus of his theology does not represent a “Christomonism” in which the whole economy of the Triune God’s creative and redemptive action loses its theological importance. Rather, Calvin’s theology is fully Trinitarian, not in spite of, but because it focuses upon redemption in Christ. This redemption, according to Calvin, manifests the Father’s love and faithfulness toward his creatures and becomes effective in us through the operation of the Spirit. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the Trinitarian scope of Calvin’s theology has surfaced throughout this exposition of the “twofold grace of God.” Calvin develops his doctrine of justification and sanctification in theological, Christological and pneumatological categories. In its broader theological setting, the “twofold grace of God” presupposes the following features of our knowledge of God: 1) God the Father’s fidelity and mercy toward his creatures, despite their willful sinfulness; 2) the revelation of the Father’s faithfulness and mercy toward us in the person and work of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ; and 3) the application of the Father’s faithfulness and mercy in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit, who joins us to Christ and makes us participate in his redemption. By grounding his doctrine of justification and sanctification in the gracious work of the Triune God toward us, Calvin is able to insist upon the unity of these benefits of redemption within God’s saving purpose and action.1 The righteousness and

198

Part 3

God’s saving purpose and action.1 The righteousness and love of the Father are expressed in Christ’s redemptive office, particularly in his priestly office of reconciliation and in his kingly office of ruling through the Spirit of sanctification. Through Christ’s life of obedience, atoning sacrifice, and continual intercession on our behalf, it is possible for believers to find acceptance with God. By virtue of his ascension and heavenly session, Christ grants believers his Spirit, who makes them members of Christ’s body and claims them for himself in newness of life. Because the work of God—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—is one great redemptive work, it includes the benefits of both justification and sanctification. All those who acknowledge and respond to this gracious work by faith are simultaneously adopted as God’s children and renewed after his image. Justification and sanctification can no more be separated, as Calvin frequently insists, than Christ can be torn asunder or separated from his Spirit. Not only does this Trinitarian and Christological development of the doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” allow Calvin a resolution of the question of the relation between its two aspects, but it also distinguishes his view from some forms of later orthodoxy’s and Pietism’s doctrine of an ordo salutis.2 Though we cannot do justice to this doctrine and its place in the history of doctrine, it differs from Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” in Christ by virtue of its more technical elaboration of the application of God’s grace in Christ and its tendency to view justification and sanctification almost exclusively within the framework of “applied grace” (gratia applicatrix). The ordo salutis tends to identify the grace of God with a series of logically, sometimes even chronologically, distinct occurrences in the human soul. In distinction from Calvin’s emphasis upon the theological and Christological basis for understanding the nature of God’s grace in us through the operation of the Holy Spirit, the ordo salutis 1 Cf. Alfred Göhler, Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung, 106; and D.A. Lang, Zwei CalvinVorträge, 26. Both of these interpreters rightly suggest that this is the answer to the question of the unity and relation of justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology. 2 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/2, 502–3, discusses the contrast between Calvin’s approach and that often represented by means of an ordo salutis. He argues that the ordo salutis tends toward “psychologistic pragmatics” as well as exegetical arbitrariness. Wilhelm Dantine, Justification of the Ungodly, trans. Eric W. Gritsch and Ruth C. Gritsch (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968), argues similarly that Luther’s position was distinct from that of later Lutheran theology’s development of an ordo salutis. Cf. Evans, “Imputation and Impartation,” 432, who speaks of a “fundamental incompatibility” between Calvin’s view of union with Christ and its twofold benefit and the later orthodox doctrine of the ordo salutis. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ?,” 381–2, makes a similar claim. In my judgment, this draws the contrast between Calvin and his Reformed successors too sharply. The rudiments of the more developed ordo salutis of Reformed orthodoxy are certainly present in Calvin’s thought. For example, we have noted the theological priority that Calvin assigns to justification in relation to sanctification, a priority that was articulated clearly in the later Reformed understanding of the ordo salutis.

The Trinitarian and Christological Basis

199

focuses primarily upon the work of the Spirit in the life of the individual believer. Moreover, this work of the Spirit, especially in the context of Protestant Pietism, tends to be too sharply distinguished from its basis in the work of the Father and the Son, as well as from its setting within the communion of the church. Consequently, the work of the Spirit is often interpreted in terms of an internalized piety. In some of its formulations, the doctrine of the ordo salutis contrasts with Calvin’s more fully Trinitarian conception of redemption, and therefore is not able to provide a satisfactory account of the unity between justification and sanctification. Because of his less technical description of God’s grace in Christ, Calvin is able to describe the “way of salvation” simply in terms of the two ways in which the Trinitarian economy of redemption affects those who embrace Christ by faith, not only individually, but corporately within the community of faith, the church.3 One of the more significant, though potentially misleading, ways in which Calvin expresses the Trinitarian basis of his conception of salvation, is his use of the traditional scheme of four causes to interpret God’s gracious work.4 In his appropriation of this scheme, which was a commonplace among medieval theologians, Calvin identifies the following “causes” of the believer’s salvation: 1) the “efficient cause” of salvation is the Father’s freely given love or mercy; 2) the “material cause” is the Son’s obedience and atoning sacrifice; 3) the “formal” or “instrumental” cause is the Spirit’s work in us and the gift of faith; and 4) the “final cause” is the praise of the divine justice and goodness.5 What is noteworthy about Calvin’s causal scheme is its Trinitarian exposition of redemption. Redemption springs from, and is unto the praise of, the Father’s goodness and mercy. Though Christ is the substance or material cause of redemption, he reveals and is a pledge of the Father’s mercy. Moreover, Christ only redeems us when “by the secret power of the Spirit” he becomes effective in us.6 As we shall see in the following chapter, Calvin believes that this work of the Spirit in us ordinarily takes place within the fellowship of the church through the instrumentality or means of the preached Word and the sacraments rightly 3 The importance of the church in mediating the gospel will be explored in the next chapter. For Calvin, the church is the ordinary sphere within which the Spirit unites us with Christ and makes us partake of his benefits. 4 Louis Goumaz, in his La Doctrine du salut, utilizes this scheme as the basic organizing principle of his discussion. In my opinion, this approach is not without its dangers, since it elevates this scheme to a position larger than Calvin grants it. 5 See, e.g., III.xiv.17 (OS 4.235–6); Comm. Rom 3:24 (CO 49.61–2); Comm. Rom 3:22 (CO 49.60); Comm. Acts 22:16 (CO 48.494); Comm. Eph 1:5 (CO 51.148). 6 Comm. Acts 22:16 (CO 48.496): “Quare hoc primo loco tenendum est, solum esse Deum qui nos a peccatis abluit filii sui sanguine: ut autem efficax in nobis sit haec ablutio, ipsum agere arcana virtute spiritus.”

200

Part 3

administered.7 By utilizing this scheme, Calvin is able to express succinctly the Trinitarian content of his doctrine of grace. In addition to its use for this purpose, Calvin also appropriates this scheme in order to emphasize the theocentric character of his doctrine of redemption. For Calvin, God’s grace in Christ is wholly directed to our redemption, yet this never implies a narrowly anthropocentric and reductionistic account of the gospel. Rather, as this scheme suggests, our justification and sanctification are rooted in and express the character of God himself in relation to us. Though these benefits of redemption are granted to believers, their final goal “consists both in the proof of divine justice and the praise of God’s goodness.”8 Particularly when the point at issue is our justification, Calvin is concerned to preserve its sole basis in God’s righteousness and mercy and to interpret it in terms of its purpose, which is ultimately to serve God’s glory. In order to illustrate this theocentric and Trinitarian focus of Calvin’s theology of grace, we will consider two theological themes that are prominent in Calvin’s understanding of God’s grace in Christ. These themes, which confirm the theocentric emphasis of Calvin’s doctrine of grace, are 1) Calvin’s conception of the righteousness or justice of God, and 2) his claim that our justification is unto the praise of God’s glory.

13.2 The Righteousness of God Calvin’s conception of the righteousness or justice of God is complex and exceptionally difficult to define, especially since the dispute over its interpretation is so often associated with the question of whether Calvin’s doctrine of God is “nominalist.”9 While we will not attempt to resolve this 7 Comm. Acts 22:16 (CO 48.496); Comm. Eph 1:8 (CO 51.150). Since the church, through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, is the means used by the Spirit to invite us into the society of Christ, Calvin also refers to it as the “formal” cause of salvation. 8 III.xiv.17 (OS 4.235): “Porro finalem testatur Apostolus esse, et divinae iustitiae demonstrationem, et bonitatis laudem.” Cf. Comm. Rom 3:24 (CO 49.61). 9 The problem with much of the discussion of this question involves determining the nature of “nominalism” and the extent to which Calvin’s view is similar or dissimilar. Wendel, Calvin, 127–9, briefly treats this question and concludes that, when the position of Duns Scotus is properly understood, “traces” of nominalism are evident in Calvin’s discussion of the relation of God’s will to the law. Heiko A. Oberman, “Die ‘Extra’-Dimension in der Theologie Calvins,” 353, provides a good analysis of Calvin’s view of God’s power and justice: “Während die potentia absoluta im späten Mittelalter zeigen sollte, dass es keine necessitas rei und daher auch keine necessitas dei fur die Verpflichtungen de potentia ordinata gibt, weist die potentia absoluta im Verständnis Calvins nicht darauf hin, was Gott hätte tun können, sondern was er wirklich tut. Für Calvin ist die potentia absoluta nicht der Bereich des deus ex lex, sondern von Gottes Herrschaft etiam extra legem; es ist das ‘ius mundi regendi, nobis incognitum.’”

The Trinitarian and Christological Basis

201

dispute in all its dimensions, an important feature of Calvin’s doctrine of God is his emphasis upon the righteousness of God, which expresses God’s faithfulness toward his people. According to Calvin, the righteousness of God not only reveals God’s justice in the obedience and sacrifice of Christ, which are imputed to us for justification, but also God’s faithfulness in his mercy toward and sovereign claim upon his people.10 The righteousness of God expresses itself in his gracious action toward us, an action in which he shows himself to be right and true. Though the revelation of this righteousness rests upon God’s free mercy and goodness, it is not arbitrary, but genuinely exhibits God’s character as the fountain and norm for righteousness. Furthermore, it is this righteousness, understood as God’s constant faithfulness toward his people, that is revealed in the reconciling work of Christ on our behalf and that is the basis for our justification and sanctification. One reason why this view of the righteousness of God is so often ignored in studies of Calvin’s theology is that it seems incongruent with Calvin’s more customary conception of the righteousness of God in connection with his doctrine of justification by faith. Ordinarily, Calvin defines the righteousness of faith not as a quality inhering in us, but as a pure gift of God that we possess by faith alone.11 Since God in his righteousness abhors sin and requires that his holiness be maintained, guilty sinners must first receive a righteousness from God in order to be acceptable to him.12 For Calvin, believers obtain this righteousness through the forgiveness of sins and the conferral of Christ’s righteousness upon them.13 The righteousness of faith, which is God’s gracious gift to us in Christ, wholly depends upon the gracious action of God in Christ, who, by his obedience and atoning death, satisfied God’s righteousness and procured our acceptance with God. The righteousness of faith, therefore, relates to God’s action in Christ as the manner of our justification relates to its “principal cause.” Our justification 10 H. Paul Santmire, “Justification in Calvin’s 1540 Romans Commentary,” CH 33 (1964): 297, provides a brief definition: “Calvin’s concept of righteousness may be defined as the continual and manifest affirmation of the Creator’s lordship […].” While correct so far as it goes, this definition does not adequately stress its relation to God’s mercy and goodness, and allows an opening to those who would interpret this Lordship arbitrarily. 11 See, e.g., Comm. Gal 3:6 (CO 50.205): “Ergo quum fidei tribuimus hominis iustificationem, non de causa principali disputamus: sed tantum notamus modum, quo perveniunt homines ad veram iustitiam. Iustitia enim haec merum Dei est donum, non qualitas quae in hominibus haereat: sed fide tantum possidetur.” 12 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 1:17 (CO 49.20): “Si enim salutem quaerimus, hoc est vitam apud Deum, quaerenda primum est iustitia per quam illi reconciliati vitam, quae in sola eius benevolentia consistit, eo propitio obtineamus. Nam ut a Deo amemur, prius iustos esse necesse est: quum iniustitiam odio habeat.” 13 Comm. 2 Peter 1:1 (CO 55.443–4); Comm. Rom 3:21 (CO 49.57); Comm. Rom 1:17 (CO 49.20–1); Comm. Gal 3:16 (CO 50.205).

202

Part 3

comprises God’s acceptance or approval of us in Christ and our appropriation of that acceptance through faith.14 In his doctrine of justification, therefore, Calvin clearly interprets the righteousness of God in juridical or forensic categories. God’s righteousness is revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as a gracious, yet just, judgment upon sin and unrighteousness. This judgment involves our acquittal in Christ before God’s tribunal, since Christ took up our cause, suffered God’s judgment against sin, and was subsequently raised as one approved by God. Though Calvin acknowledges that this reconciliation and justification is a mystery expressing the unfathomable mercy of God, the judgment effected in it shows forth the righteousness of God who nowhere acquiesces in our unrighteousness, but sets it aside in Christ’s death and brings new life from the dead in his resurrection. Those who, through faith, recognize this just judgment against sin and cling to Christ alone, become partakers of his righteousness and share in God’s acceptance and vindication of him in his resurrection. In his articulation of this understanding of the righteousness of God in Christ, Calvin believes it is especially important that it is revealed apart from the law. It is not a righteousness based upon our fulfillment of the law or a righteousness inhering in us, but an imputed righteousness.15 Since this is Calvin’s customary understanding of the righteousness of God in justification, how does it relate to the righteousness of God, now understood as his constant faithfulness toward and claim upon his people? According to Calvin, the righteousness of God refers simply to his “protection by which he constantly defends his own people, and the goodness by which […] he preserves them.”16 It is that “faithfulness and truth which he manifests towards his people.”17 This righteousness of God, which is an “effect” of his mercy18 and a synonym for his faithfulness,19 demonstrates that “he is a faithful guardian of his people.”20 When God acts toward his 14 Comm. Gal 3:16 (CO 50.205); Comm. Rom 1:17 (CO 49.20–1); Comm. Rom 3:21 (CO 49.57); Comm. 2 Cor 5:21 (CO 50.4). 15 Comm. 2 Peter 1:1 (CO 55.443–4). In this passage, Calvin argues that the righteousness of God is the “effective cause of faith,” since God alone confers it upon us. He further notes that this righteousness is not something that remains only in God, but it is imparted to us. It proceeds from God and “is channeled down to us through Christ.” 16 Comm. Ps 40:2 (CO 31.414). There are several references to this sense of the righteousness of God in Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms. Cf., e.g., Comm. Ps 5:9 (CO 31.69); Comm. Ps 7:18 (CO 31.87); Comm. Ps 36:2 (CO 31.364); Comm. Ps 48:10 (CO 31.479). 17 Comm. Micah 6:5 (CO 43.390): “[…] fide et veritate, quam servat erga suos.” Calvin then adds, “ita est relatio inter Deum et ecclesiam quoties ponitere hoc sensu nomen iustitiae. Ut ergo cognoscas iustitias Iehovae, hoc est ut ipsa experientia tibi demonstret quam verax; quam beneficus, quam misericors semper fuerit Deus erga genus vestrum.” 18 Comm. Ps 36:2 (CO 31.364): “Huic iustitiam annectit tanquam effectum suae causae.” 19 Comm. Micah 7:9 (CO 43.416): “Denique idem significant Dei iustitia et fidelitas.” 20 Comm. Ps 22:31 (CO 31.237). Also cf. Comm. Ps 145.17 (CO 32.418).

The Trinitarian and Christological Basis

203

people in cherishing, defending, and delivering them, he keeps faith with them and does that which is just, right, and true.21 In a passage that explicitly distinguishes this understanding of God’s righteousness from that ordinarily employed in his treatment of justification, Calvin notes: The righteousness of God […] does not here denote that free gift by which he reconciles men to himself, or by which he regenerates them to newness of life; but his faithfulness in keeping his promises, by which he means to show that he is righteous, upright, and true towards his servants.22

On this understanding of the righteousness of God, the emphasis falls upon God’s character and power in effectually demonstrating that he is true to his Word of promise, not upon God’s free acceptance of us in Christ, which is based upon the conferral to us of Christ’s righteousness. In this sense of the righteousness of God, Calvin emphasizes God’s willingness to defend his people and take up their cause, making it his own. On this understanding, it would be proper to say that there is an important sense in which God, in his gracious action toward us, justifies himself by showing that he is righteous and true to his Word. Though Calvin nowhere systematically coordinates this understanding of God’s righteousness with his more common understanding of it in connection with justification, it should be apparent that a relation exists between them. This understanding of God’s faithfulness or effective demonstration of his righteousness expresses the truth that, when God freely justifies us in Christ, he also justifies himself in powerfully fulfilling his promise to his people. Accordingly, our justification refers not only to that which God does to redeem us, but also to that which he does to prove his own righteousness and truth. Consistent with his basic correlation of the knowledge of God and of ourselves, Calvin interprets the righteousness of God both in terms of what it reveals about God in relation to us and about ourselves in relation to God. This understanding of the righteousness of God reflects the thoroughly theocentric setting for Calvin’s doctrine of justification. As Calvin puts it in his commentary on Romans 3:3–4: The faithfulness of God, so far from being overthrown by the perfidy and apostacy of men, becomes thereby more evident. God, he [Paul] says, is true, not only because he is prepared to stand faithfully by his promises, but also because he fulfills in deed whatever he declares in Word; for he says, “As my power, so shall my work be.”23

21 Comm. Ps 71.14 (CO 31.658). 22 Comm. Ps 71:16 (CO 31.660): “Iustitia enim Dei […] non gratuitum illud donum quo sibi reconciliat homines, vel regenerat in vitae novitatem, sed fidem in servandis promissis significat, qua se aequum, et rectum, et veracem probare vult erga suos cultores.” 23 Comm. Rom 3:4 (CO 49.48).

204

Part 3

13.3 The Glory of God Besides his conception of the righteousness of God in justification, Calvin’s conception of God’s glory also deserves comment, since it reflects the theocentric accent of his doctrine of grace. For Calvin, the final cause of our redemption is the praise of God’s righteousness and goodness. As we have previously noted, Calvin’s repudiation of justification by the works of the law is largely based upon his insistence that this would deprive God of his exclusive honor. It would open the door to the antithesis of the humility of faith, glorying in one’s own righteousness rather than in the grace of God in Christ alone. Since our justification manifests the faithfulness of God toward us, and since this faithfulness demonstrates his truth and justice, it must issue in our ascribing the praise and glory to God alone for our redemption. According to Calvin, we must […] remember that this was the cause and purpose (finalem hanc fuisse causam) that made God reconcile us to himself through his only-begotten Son, that publishing the riches of his grace and boundless mercy, he should lend lustre to his name.24

When we contemplate our redemption, we must not only begin with God’s goodness and righteousness, but also conclude with an awareness that this constitutes his chief praise and glory. To correctly interpret Calvin’s conception of the glory of God in redemption, it should be observed that he often speaks generally of the glory of God in connection with his doctrine of God’s revelation in creation. While Calvin on a few isolated occasions identifies the glory of God with his divine majesty and immensity,25 he more commonly identifies it with the opera Dei in creation and providence—with God, not as he is in himself, but as he is in his revelation of himself to us. Calvin speaks of the whole creation as a “theater of God’s glory,” and of God’s particular works in creation and providence as “engraved with the unmistakable marks of his glory.”26 However much this may be suppressed through sinful ignorance, the glory of God is there for all to see, because the creation and works of God mirror his power, wisdom, justice, and goodness. These works of God 24 Comm. Luke 2:14 (CO 45.76). 25 See, e.g., Comm. Ezek 9:3,4 (CO 40.196–7). Even in this passage, after noting that the prophet takes the “glory of God for God himself,” Calvin notes that this glory was revealed through a vision “which was a sign or symbol of the presence of God.” Cf. also: Comm. Isa 40:5 (CO 37.9); Comm. John 17:5 (CO 47.378). 26 I.v.1 (OS 3.45). Cf. I.v.2 (OS 3.46); I.v.14–15 (OS 3.58–60); I.xv.3 (OS 3.176); I.xvii.1 (OS 3.202). Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 52–4, correctly notes that the gloria Dei is evident in the opera Dei. However, he does not consider Calvin’s understanding of the glory of God in relation to his works of redemption in particular.

The Trinitarian and Christological Basis

205

reveal his glory in a form accessible to our grasp so that, if it were not for the debilitating effects of sin, they would lead us to respond in trust and reverence. When Calvin refers to the glory of God in redemption, he continues to emphasize its significance for our apprehension not of God as he is in himself, but as he is in relation to us. The glory of God in redemption, however, has a more precise and specific content. It is not merely a glory that is universally displayed in his works of creation and providence, but a glory that is especially displayed in his goodness and mercy toward us. God’s glory is revealed in his works of redemption in which he demonstrates his faithfulness to his promise. The glory of God that is revealed in redemption is God’s mercy and kindness.27 For this reason, we may say that the glory of God and the salvation of the church are indissolubly linked,28 or that God “shows a remarkable proof of his love towards us, because he joins as by an indissoluble bond his glory with our salvation.”29 God himself, says Calvin in his commentary on Ezekiel 20:44, […] pronounces that his glory would be chiefly conspicuous in the pity which he bestowed upon those who were desperate and abandoned, gratuitously and solely with respect to his own name.30

God’s “chief glory is that vast and ineffable goodness by which he has once embraced us, and which he will show to the end.”31 Consequently, though God’s glory shines in all creatures, nowhere is it more in evidence than in Christ’s cross, the definitive expression of God’s kindness: For in the cross of Christ, as in a splendid theatre, the incomparable goodness of God is set before the whole world. The glory of God shines, indeed, in all creatures high and below, but never more brightly than in the cross, in which there was a wonderful change of things—the condemnation of all men was manifested, sin blotted out, salvation restored to men; in short, the whole world was renewed and all things restored to order.32

27 Comm. Rom 9:23 (CO 49.188): “Gloriae vocabulum, quod bis hic repetitur, interpretor positum pro misericordia Dei […].” Cf. Comm. Isa 42:8 (CO 37.66). 28 Comm. Ezek 20:10 (CO 40.481): “Dixi quidem res esse coniunctar, salutem ecclesiae et Dei gloriam.” 29 Comm. John 2:17 (CO 47.46): “In quo singulare amoris erga nos sui documentum praebet, quod suam gloriam quasi individuo nexu cum salute nostra coniungit.” 30 Comm. Ezek 20:44 (CO 40.514): “Hic tandem pronuntiat Deus gloriam suam in eo maxime conspicuaim fore, quod gratis, et quidem solo nominis sui respectu misertus fuerit eorum, qui desperati erant ac perditi.” Cf. Comm. Micah 7:18 (CO 43.429). 31 Comm. Zeph 3:16 (CO 44.73): “[…] quia praecipua eius gloria est, illa immensa et inaestimabilis bonitas, qua nos semel complexus est et prosequetur usque in finem.” 32 Comm. John 13:31 (CO 47.316–7): “Nam in Christi cruce, quasi in splendidissimo theatro, incomparabilis Dei bonitas toti mundi spectat fuit. Sursum quidem et deorsum in omnibus

206

Part 3

By contrast to God’s self-revelation of his glory in creation, the glory of God in redemption refers to his gratuitous mercy and love toward us in justifying us and restoring us to a rightly ordered relation with him.33

13.4 Summary Though some of the preceding discussion of the Trinitarian and Christological basis of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” was anticipated in earlier chapters, it illustrates how an adequate account of Calvin’s view of justification and sanctification requires a grasp of the basic structure and content of his theology. It also shows the extent to which an understanding of the Trinitarian and Christological basis of the “twofold grace of God” helps answer some of the interpretive problems that have emerged in the literature on Calvin’s theology. The unity between justification and sanctification in Calvin’s theology rests upon the unity of the Triune God’s work of redemption, not only in restoring fellowship with his sinful creatures, but also in recreating them after his image. Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” is not an example of a theological theme that is deduced from an alleged central dogma such as God’s sovereignty. Nor does it confirm what some interpreters view as the dialectical or antithetical form of Calvin’s theology. This summary of Calvin’s understanding of the righteousness and the glory of God in redemption illustrates how Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” expresses the correlation between the knowledge of God and ourselves that is the focus of his theology. In articulating his doctrine of justification and sanctification, Calvin emphasizes what it reveals both about God in his self-revelation and

creaturis relucet Dei gloria, sed nunquam illustriori alibi fuit quam in cruce, in qua admirabilis facta est rerum conversio, ostensa omnium hominum damnatio fuit, abolitum peccatum, reddita hominibus salus, toto denique mundo reparato omnia in ordinem restitua.” 33 Henry Kuizenga, “The Relation of God’s Grace to His Glory in John Calvin,” in Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton, ed. Franklin H. Littell (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1962), 95–105, deals with Calvin’s conception of the glory of God in relation to election and reprobation. According to Kuizenga, there is an inconsistency in Calvin’s theology between God’s glory in salvation and his glory in reprobation, since Calvin vacillates between associating this glory with God’s goodness and with the vindication of his justice and holiness. Though Kuizenga does point out some ambiguities in Calvin’s development of the idea of God’s glory, missing from his treatment is a reference to many of the passages referred to in the preceding. Kuizenga leaves the misleading impression that Calvin speaks of God’s glory in an equally emphatic manner in relation to salvation and damnation. The passages referred to here, however, suggest that Calvin understands God’s chief and essential glory to consist in the salvation of his people.

The Trinitarian and Christological Basis

207

about us as the recipients of his mercy. When the Triune God redeems us in Christ, he demonstrates his trustworthiness as the God who is “for us” (Deus pro nobis) and lends luster to his holy name. In so doing, he proves himself faithful and true, and ties his glory to our salvation.

14. The “Twofold Grace of God” and Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church and Sacraments

On more than one occasion, we have referred in the preceding to the importance of Calvin’s doctrine of the church.1 Though not a complete measure of its importance, the relative size of Book IV of the Institutes, which treats the subject of the church and sacraments, does confirm its prominence in Calvin’s thought. By far the largest section of his Institutes, Book IV provides a thorough and far-ranging account of his conception of the church, of the Word and sacraments, and of discipline and ecclesiastical power. In terms of the structure of Calvin’s theology, his treatment of the church is clearly intended to complement the treatment of the “twofold grace of God” in Book III. After having treated our union with Christ, the Redeemer, through the working of the Holy Spirit and the gift of faith, Calvin first speaks of the twofold benefit of this union, justification and sanctification. However, he does so in the awareness that our actual incorporation into Christ only occurs by means of the ministry of the church. As the heading of Book IV expresses it, the believer’s incorporation into Christ ordinarily is effected through the “external means or aids” the Holy Spirit uses in inviting us into and preserving us within the “society of Christ.”2 The church, through its ministry and sacraments, is the divinely instituted means by which we are claimed by the gospel of Jesus Christ, called to faith, and converted from death to life. Consequently, any treatment of justification and sanctification, if it is to accord with Calvin’s own viewpoint, must attend to his doctrine of the church and sacraments.

14.1 The Church as the “Mother of Believers” In the opening paragraph of his discussion of the church in the Institutes, Calvin repeats his conviction that it is by faith in the gospel that Christ 1 Contrary to some subsequent developments within Protestantism, Calvin does not admit a fellowship with Christ apart from his church. Ganoczy, in his Calvin, Théologien de L’Église et du Ministère, correctly suggests that Calvin is closer here to traditional Roman Catholic teaching than to the individualism of some of his theological descendants. 2 The full title of Book IV (OS 5.1) reads: “De externis mediis vel adminiculis, quibus Deus in Christi societatem nos invitat, et in ea retinet.”

Church and Sacraments

209

becomes ours and we are made his beneficiaries. However, he then outlines the function of the church as the medium, accommodated to our weakness, by which God evokes such faith in us and strengthens us in the Christian life. Since, however, in our ignorance and sloth (to which I add fickleness of disposition) we need outward helps to beget and increase faith within us, and advance it to its goal, God has also added these aids that he may provide for our weakness. And in order that the preaching of the gospel might flourish, he deposited this treasure in the church.3

The purpose of the church is to be an instrument in communicating to us the gospel of Jesus Christ, calling us to faith and repentance. Just as Christ would remain “outside of us” if it were not for the internal operation of the Spirit, so also, if it were not for the operation of the Spirit through the church, there would be no ordinary means by which such faith could be produced or strengthened.4 Though Calvin does not speak of the church as an extension of the incarnation, he does conceive of the church as being complementary to this unique event. Whereas the incarnation forms the one, unique medium through which God accommodates himself to us, the church is a subordinate means whereby God also chooses to approach us and make himself accessible to us. Accordingly, it is legitimate to argue, as Niesel does, that the “condescension of God in the institution of the church is a type of the former original condescension.”5 Within the context of Calvin’s emphasis upon God’s accommodation of himself in disclosing his creative and redemptive purposes, the church forms an essential part of the Triune God’s gracious action toward us. In order to emphasize the integral role the church plays in bringing about renewed fellowship between the Triune God and us, Calvin readily embraces the ancient description of the church as the “mother of the faithful.” While Calvin leaves God the freedom to communicate his grace otherwise than through the church,6 the church ordinarily serves as the “mother of believers” 3 IV.i.1 (OS 5.1) 4 W. Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin, 90, rightly emphasizes that Calvin understands fellowship with Christ as a corollary of fellowship with the church. There is no real union with Christ outside of his church, nor is there any real membership in his church without being united with him. 5 Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 187. 6 IV.i.5 (OS 5.9). Calvin acknowledges that God’s power in communicating the gospel is “not bound to outward means”; however, “he has nonetheless bound us to this ordinary manner of teaching.” Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 282–323, provides a summary of Calvin’s doctrine of the church, which emphasizes the real communion it effects between the Triune God and his people. The claim that Calvin dialectically opposes God’s transcendence and immanence fails to appreciate the implications of his doctrine of the church.

210

Part 3

(mater fidelium), the society within which faith is born, nourished and strengthened.7 As he remarks in his commentary on Galatians 4:26, […] this is why the church is called the mother of believers (cur ecclesia vocetur fidelium mater). And, certainly, he who refuses to be a son of the church desires in vain to have God as his Father. For it is only through the ministry of the church that God begets sons for himself and brings them up until they pass through adolescence and reach manhood.8

Consequently, when Calvin opens his discussion of the church, he chooses to entitle his first chapter, “The true church, with which as mother of all the godly, we must keep unity.”9 The whole purpose of our redemption through Christ, the Mediator, would be frustrated, if it were not for the Holy Spirit’s operation through the church’s ministry and sacraments. The great mystery of the church is to serve the cause of our redemption by communicating the whole gospel of Jesus Christ to us.10 Another and closely related description of the church in Calvin’s theology is the “body of Christ.” The church, however much it may display definite institutional and organizational features, is composed firstly of members who together form a communion united with and under the Head and Lord of the church, Jesus Christ. Through the ministry of its special officers, the body of Christ is built up and united by a mutual affection for Christ and his members.11 A fellowship is formed that is based upon the redemptive office of Christ, and that manifests a life of mutual service and helpfulness.12 For Calvin, this constitutes the essential meaning of the article in the Apostle’s Creed on the “communion of the saints.” This clause, though generally omitted by the ancients, ought not to be overlooked, for it very well expresses what the church is. It is as if one said that the saints are gathered into the society of Christ on the principle that whatever benefits God confers upon them, they should in turn share with each other.13

Since all are engrafted into the one body of Christ, all are members of one another and are committed to the common good and welfare of the others.14 7 Comm. 1 Tim 3:15 (CO 52.288): “[…] the church is the mother of all believers, because she brings them to new birth by the Word of God, educates and nourishes them all their life, strengthens them and finally leads them to complete perfection.” 8 Comm. Gal 4:26 (CO 50.239–40). Cf. IV.i.4 (OS 5.7). 9 IV.i (OS 5.1): “De vera Ecclesia, cum qua nobis colenda est unitas: quia piorum omnium mater est.” 10 Comm. Isa 33:24 (CO 36.578). 11 IV.iii.2 (OS 5.44). 12 IV.i.3 (OS 5.5–6). 13 IV.i.3 (OS 5.5). 14 Comm. 1 Cor 12:27 (CO 49.505): “It follows that all that has been said about the nature and characteristics of the human body, ought to be applied to us, for we are not just a civil society,

Church and Sacraments

211

Such union with Christ in one body creates a concern for other members, such that the gifts of each are employed to advance the cause of the whole body.15 This means that all will be united in brotherly love and in sharing their gifts, since all have a common Father and Head.16 From this brief synopsis of Calvin’s conception of the church as the mother of believers and the body of Christ, the critical role that he ascribes to the church in the economy of redemption is evident. Rooted in God’s gracious election,17 the visible church is a sign of God’s gracious condescension to us. It is the sphere within which we are brought into a living communion with Christ through the operation of the Spirit. Within the society and fellowship of the church, the believer becomes a partaker of Christ through faith and a recipient of the gospel benefits of justification and sanctification. Calvin’s understanding of the church’s role in salvation confirms the integral unity of these two benefits within the one redemptive work of the Triune God.

14.2 The Preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments When Calvin describes the church as the common Mmother” of all the faithful and as the “body of Christ,” he wishes to underscore the fundamental purpose and nature of the church. It is the tangible medium wherein the Triune God meets us in the here and now. The specific manner in which this occurs is through the two “marks of the church” (notae ecclesiae), the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. As Calvin remarks, “[w]herever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there it is but, having been ingrafted into the body of Christ, we are really members one of another. Therefore everyone of us should realize that whatever his gift, it has been given him for the upbuilding of all the brethren; with that in mind he should devote it to the common good, and not suppress it, burying it within himself so to speak, or use it as if it were his private possession.” 15 Comm. Eph 4:16 (CO 51.203): “So if we wish to be considered in Christ, let no man be anything for himself, but let us all be whatever we are for others. This is accomplished by love.” 16 IV.i.3 (OS 5.5). Calvin often asserts that, within the fellowship and communion of the church, all things are to be held in common. This is especially true in respect to the church’s wealth. See, e.g., IV.iv.6 (OS 5.62–3); IV.iv.7 (OS 5.63–4); IV.v.17–19 (OS 5.87–90). 17 IV.i.2–3 (OS 5.2–6). When Calvin distinguishes, following Augustine, between the “visible” and the “invisible” church, he does so in order to distinguish between the church as an object of faith and as an object of experience. He is not referring to two churches. Cf. Wendel, Calvin, 297: “But though the church thus presents itself to us under two quite distinct aspects, of which one is an object of faith and the other an object of experience; or, if you will, one of which represents the church as God sees it, and the other as it appears to us, it does not follow from this that there are two Churches.”

212

Part 3

not to be doubted, a church of God exists.”18 While there may be many aspects of the church’s actual practice that are incidental to the fulfillment of its essential purpose, the Word and sacraments are the divinely instituted and necessary means through which this purpose is effected.19 The importance of the preaching ministry in Calvin’s doctrine of the church cannot be stressed too much.20 The centrality of the preaching of the Word in Calvin’s understanding of the way the grace of God in Christ is communicated to us, is of a piece with his general theological position on the knowledge of God through his Word. As Calvin notes in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:12, I say that the ministry of the Word is like a mirror. For the angels do not need preaching, or other inferior aids, or sacraments. They have the advantage of another way of seeing God, for God does not show them his face merely in a mirror (in speculo), but he presents himself openly before them (palam se illis praesentem exhibit). But we, who have not yet scaled such heights, look upon the likeness of God (imaginem Dei speculamur) in the Word, in the sacraments, and, in short, in the whole ministry of the church.21

Even though Calvin refuses to deny the abstract possibility that God’s power can perfect us apart from the ordained means, the “universal rule” is that he chooses to do so through the ministry of the church, and in particular through preaching. This is a universal rule, which covers both the highest and the lowest. The church is the common mother of all the godly, which bears, nourishes, and governs in the Lord both kings and commoners; and this is done by the ministry.22

18 IV.i.9 (OS 5.13). Despite the importance of church discipline in Calvin’s conception of the church, he refrains from including it, as did Bucer and the Belgic Confession, for example, as a third mark of the church. Cf. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 195: “The fact that Calvin accepts as valid signs of the true church only the Word and the sacraments strikingly shows that his doctrine of the church is a testimony to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, and not a characterization of the essence of religious fellowship.” 19 By identifying these two marks as the criteria by which to determine critically whether the church exists in truth, Calvin emphasizes the theological basis of the church. The church, rightly understood, is far more than an experiential or sociological phenomenon. Cf. Wendel, Calvin, 297: “It is not, therefore, by the quality of its members, which could only give occasion for a subjective judgment, but by the presence of the means of grace instituted by the Christ, that the Church is constituted and can be objectively judged.” 20 For general treatments of Calvin’s doctrine of preaching as a principal means of communicating Christ, see Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 82–132; and T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992), 1–53. 21 Comm. 1 Cor 13:12 (CO 49.514). 22 Comm. Eph 4:12 (CO 50.199). It is surprising that neither Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, nor Wendel, Calvin, give special attention to the ministry of the Word, but only to the sacra-

Church and Sacraments

213

Through the ministry of preaching preeminently, we are called to repentance and faith, God himself addressing us with the Word of salvation and new life in Jesus Christ. Just as Calvin understands the general ministry of the church as the means by which the Holy Spirit brings us into fellowship with Christ and his members, so he also understands the ministry of the Word as an instrument of the Spirit. God always reserves to himself all authority in the church, though he chooses to exercise this authority through the church’s ministers. He alone should rule and reign in the church as well as have authority or preeminence in it, and this authority should be exercised and administered by his Word alone. Nevertheless, because he does not dwell among us in visible presence, we have said that he uses the ministry of men to declare openly his will to us by mouth, as a sort of delegated work, not by transferring to them his right and honor, but only that through their mouths he may do his own work—just as a workman uses a tool to do his work.23

Calvin’s understanding of the preaching of the Word is, therefore, a primary instance of his general conception of the church’s ministry. While Christ always retains his preeminence and headship in the church, he elects to use instruments in the proclamation of the gospel, and accompanies their proclamation with the vivifying presence of his Spirit.24 Within this framework, Calvin is quite willing to speak of preaching as a form of the Word of God. It is God who wishes to be heard through the speaking of his ministers.25 Wherever the Word of God is preached, it is only “by God’s special providence and appointment” (speciali Dei providentia et ordinatione), to the end that faith may be born from the Word and calling of God.26 Just as God is heard in Christ and his gospel, so Christ himself speaks and communicates to us through his ministers.27 Such preaching is an instrument of divine power for our salvation28 and is the ments, in their treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of the church. See Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, 82–122, for an extended discussion of this subject. 23 IV.iii.1 (OS 5.42). Cf. also Comm. Mal 2:9 (CO 44.439–40); Comm. 1 Cor 1:12 (CO 49.316); Comm. 1 Cor 9:1 (CO 49.438); Comm. 2 Cor 10:8 (CO 50.118). 24 For Calvin, the Word of God is the final authority in all aspects of the church’s life; it is that to which all its ministers are subject. In this way, Christ remains the church’s “supreme teacher,” and ministers serve as his representatives. See, e.g., Comm. John 20:21 (CO 47.438); Comm. John 20:23 (CO 47.441); Comm. Luke 10:16 (CO 45.314); Comm. Matt 23:6 (CO 45.625). 25 Comm. John 10:4 (CO 47.237): “Deum per ipsos loquentem vult audire.” 26 Comm. Rom 10:13 (CO 49.204). Cf. Comm. Rom 10:17 (CO 49.206); Comm. Rom 11:14 (CO 49.219). 27 Comm. Acts 9:6 (CO 48.203–4). 28 Comm. Luke 1:16 (CO 45.16).

214

Part 3

economy by which the Lord wishes to rule and govern his church.29 When Christ speaks through the voice of his ministers, he exhibits his exclusive claim over his body, calling all to believe in him and to consecrate themselves to his service. In his evaluation of the significance of preaching, Calvin insists that its efficacy and power depends not upon the person who administers the Word, but upon the Word itself that is administered and accompanied by the operation of the Spirit. In preaching, as in the entire ministry of the church,30 it is the Spirit who renders the Word effective in the lives of its hearers. Preaching without the effectual presence of Christ’s Spirit would be a “dead and useless” thing. It would lack the power of Christ’s gracious presence and Lordship, communicating to us forgiveness of sins through his saving office and sanctification through his Spirit.31 Consequently, Calvin often underscores the connection between the vocation to faith and repentance that is proclaimed in the Word, and the “inward vocation” that the Spirit works in us through the Word.32 Consistent with his view of the internal testimony of the Spirit in conjunction with an acknowledgment of the Word’s authority, Calvin understands the preached Word, insofar as it faithfully expounds the Scriptures, to rest upon the Spirit’s attestation for its authority and efficacy. The preaching of the Word is, therefore, the primary and indispensable medium through which Christ himself communicates the gospel to us, joins us to himself within the fellowship of his body, and calls us to pattern our lives after his. In this function, preaching is vital to the communication of the gospel of the free forgiveness of sins and repentance of life. It is primarily through preaching that the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith is administered. Through the preaching of forgiveness, the minister offers and declares reconciliation through Christ to all who believe.33 Furthermore, due to the twofold nature of the gospel, this declaration is invariably joined with a call to repentance and new life in Christ. “In short, the same Word of God that offers us pardon calls us at the same time to repentance.”34 If Christ’s kingdom finds it peculiar redemptive focus in the administration of the gospel, then preaching, which is the “scepter” of 29 Comm. Eph 4:11 (CO 51.196). 30 Calvin frequently notes that the church as a whole, together with its ministers, would be ineffective and “dead” were it not for the power and operation of the Holy Spirit. See, e.g., Comm. Acts 26:18 (CO 48.542); Comm. Luke 1:16 (CO 45.15); Comm. 1 Cor 3:7 (CO 49.350–1). 31 Comm. 1 Cor 3:7 (CO 49.350–1). 32 Comm. Rom 10:16 (CO 49.206). See also Comm. Rom 11:14 (CO 49.219); Comm. John 14:25 (CO 47.334–5); Comm. John 16:8 (CO 47.359); Comm. Acts 15:7 (CO 48.344). 33 Comm. Gen 27:37 (CO 23.381): “Sic remittere peccata dicuntur, qui tantum gratuitae veniae nuncii sunt ac interpres.” Cf. III.iv.12 (OS 4.99); III.iv.18 (OS 4.107); Comm. Dan 12:3 (CO 41.292). 34 Comm. John 8:11 (CO 47.191): “In summa, eodem Dei verbo quum venia nobis offertur, simul vocamur ad poenitentiam.” Cf. Comm. 1 Cor 3:7 (CO 49.350–1).

Church and Sacraments

215

Christ’s kingdom within the church, is the chief means by which he calls us to faith and establishes his claim upon us.35 In addition to the preaching of the gospel, there are parallel means whereby God chooses to communicate the gospel of Christ to us. These are the sacraments, of which there are but two under the new covenant: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. According to Calvin, preaching must ordinarily be accompanied by these sacraments which, as “appendices” of the gospel, serve to confirm and to sustain us in the faith. Speaking of this relation between preaching and sacraments, Calvin notes that […] a sacrament is never without a preceding promise but is joined to it as a sort of appendix, with the purpose of confirming and sealing the promise itself, and of making it more evident to us and in a sense ratifying it.36

Consequently, the sacraments are subordinate and supplementary to the preaching of the Word, and are added as a second means of communicating the grace of God in a manner specifically accommodated to our weakness. By this means God provides first for our ignorance and dullness, then for our weakness […]. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that […] he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings.37

In the Institutes, Calvin begins his discussion of the sacraments with the following definition: It seems to me that a simple and proper definition would be to say that it is an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety toward him in the presence of the Lord and his angels and before men. Here is another briefer definition: one may call it a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward him.38

There are several aspects of this definition that require special comment. According to Calvin, the sacraments may never be separated from the preaching of the Word, to which they are related as a supplementary means of grace. Their validity and effect is founded upon the promise that is first

35 Comm. Acts 1:8 (CO 48.10): “Hac enim voce falsam de regno terreno imaginationem excutere voluit discipulis: quia breviter significat, in evangelii praedicatione consistere […]. Audiunt tunc regnare Christum, ubi per evangelii doctrinam sibi mundum subiugat.” 36 IV.xiv.3 (OS 5.260): “[…] appendicem quandam adiungi, eo fine ut promissionem ipsam confirmet ac obsignet, nobisque testatiorem, imo ratam quodammodo faciat.” 37 IV.xiv.3 (OS 5.260). 38 IV.xiv.1 (OS 5.259): “Videtur autem mihi haec simplex et propria fore definitio, si dixerimus externum esse symbolu, quo benevolentiae erga nos suae promissiones conscientiis nostris Dominus obsignat, ad sustinendam fidei nostrae imbecillitatem […].”

216

Part 3

pronounced in the Word of the gospel and that they attest.39 Consequently, any proper administration of the sacraments will require a preceding exposition of the Word that interprets the significance of the visible sign.40 When preceded and accompanied by the spoken promises, the sacraments serve as visible signs and seals of the invisible gospel. Further, as aids to our apprehension and appropriation of the gospel message, they truly represent in a visible form the invisible grace to which the Word directs us.41 In the form of a corporeal element, an analogy, similitude, or antitype is represented that corresponds to the proclaimed promises.42 The sacraments “attest and ratify for us God’s good will toward us.”43 Just as a seal impressed upon a document, though it adds nothing to what is written, confirms and ratifies its message, so the sacraments function as divinely instituted seals that impress upon us the validity of the gospel. Though these are some of the more important elements in Calvin’s understanding of the sacraments, one of the more difficult and controversial aspects of his view remains to be considered: the question of the sacrament’s efficacy and the role of faith in their reception. In treating this question, Calvin repudiates, on the one hand, a Roman Catholic conception of the intrinsic virtue of the sacraments, together with its corollary, that they work ex opere operato.44 On the other hand, he also repudiates Zwingli’s position that the sacraments give no confirmation of God’s grace toward us, but are merely attestations of faith. The sacraments genuinely communicate the grace of Christ to us, though they do so as appendices of the preaching of the Word and as instruments that are effective only through the operation of the Spirit. We do not deny that God himself is present in his institution by the ever-present power of his Spirit. Nevertheless, that the administration of the sacraments which he has ordained may not be unfruitful and void, we declare that the inner grace of the Spirit, as distinct from the outward ministry, ought to be considered and pondered 39 Cf. Comm. Exod 24:5 (CO 25.75): “Addendum est, verbum quod sacramenta vivificat, non esse obscurum susurrum, qualiter in papatu magica incantatio […] sed esse claram et distinctam vocem, quae ad homines dirigitur, et ad fidem gignendam valet.” 40 IV.xiv.4 (OS 5.261): “Verbum enim intelligere debemus, non quod sine sensu et fide insusurratum, solo strepitu, velut magica incantatione, consecrandi elementi vim habeat: sed quod praedicatum intelligere nos faciat quid visibile signum sibi velit.” Cf. Comm. Gen 17:9 (CO 23.240): “Sciamus tamen, simulatque in oculis signum ipsum incurrit, debere in auribus personare verbum.” 41 Comm. 2 Cor 5:19 (CO 50.72): “Sacramentis insculptum est evangelii testimonium.” 42 IV.xvii.3 (OS 5.344): “[…] a rebus corporeis quae in sacramento proferuntur, quadam analogia nos ad spirituales deduci.” Cf. Comm. Acts 7:30 (CO 48.15); Comm. Heb 9:24 (CO 55.117). 43 IV.xiv.17 (OS 5.274): “[…] testificari nobis ac sancire Dei in nos benevolentiam.” Cf. Comm. Acts 2:42 (CO 48.58): “Coena autem ad doctrinam vice confirmationis accedit.” 44 IV.xiv.12–13 (OS 5.268–71).

Church and Sacraments

217

separately. God therefore truly executes whatever he promises and represents in signs; nor do the signs lack their own effect in proving their Author truthful and faithful. The only question here is whether God acts by his own intrinsic power (as they say) or resigns his office to outward symbols.45

Consistent with the whole tenor of his theology, Calvin refuses to assign the efficacy of the sacraments to their elements per se.46 The sacraments, as is true of preaching and the whole ministry of the church, remain God’s instruments whereby he represents his grace to us. They derive their efficacy from the Word that they confirm and the Spirit who operates through them. So far as the role of faith is concerned, Calvin notes that, since they are nothing other than parts of the Word of God, the sacraments also require a believing reception just as preaching requires a believing hearing.47

14.2.1 The Sacrament of Baptism In his treatment of the sacrament of baptism, Calvin emphasizes its importance as a sign of our engrafting or incorporation into Christ and his body, the church. “Baptism is the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God’s children.”48 Though it also serves as an attestation of our faith before others, baptism’s primary office is to signify God’s manifold grace toward us in Christ.49 The first and principal benefit of this grace, which is signified and sealed unto us in baptism, is the forgiveness of sins. The first thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document to confirm to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted, and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us.50 45 IV.xiv.17 (OS 5.275): “Quanquam autem Deum ipsum praesentissima Spiritus sui virtute, suae institutioni adesse non inficiamur: ne infructuosa sit et inanis quam ordinavit Sacramentorum administratio, interiorem tamen Spiritus gratiam, ut ab externo ministerio distincta est, seorsum reputandam et cognitandam asserimus […].” 46 IV.xiv.17 (OS 5.275): “Interim illud tollitur figmentum quo iustificationis causa virtusque Spiritus sancti elementis ceu vasculis ac plaustris includitur.” 47 IV.xiv.17 (OS 5.274): “Quamobrem fixum maneat, non esse alias Sacramentorum quam verbi Dei partes: quae sunt offere nobis ac proponere Christum, et in eo caelestis gratiae thesauros.” Cf. Comm. Ezek 20:12 (CO 40.485); IV.xiv.13 (OS 5.269–71). 48 IV.xv.1 (OS 5.285): “Baptismus signum est initiationis quo in Ecclesiae cooptamur societatem, ut Christo insiti, inter filios Dei censeamur.” 49 IV.xv.1 (OS 5.285). 50 IV.xv.1 (OS 5.285). This corresponds to Calvin’s general claim that justification is the “principal” benefit of the gospel.

218

Part 3

This does not mean we may confuse the power to forgive sins that inheres in Christ alone with the water of baptism. For “the meaning of baptism itself […] draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes, but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds upon Christ alone.”51 Yet our baptism remains a perpetual sign and seal of this forgiveness of sins so that, should we fall into sin, we need no additional or new remedy in other sacraments.52 Just as “we obtain in Christ continual and unceasing forgiveness of sins even unto death,” so our baptism signifies a once-for-all cleansing away of sins for “the whole course of our life.”53 Anticipating the objection that this view grants us a license to sin, and provides no remedy for post-baptismal sins, Calvin also emphasizes the close relation between baptism and repentance.54 In addition to the first benefit of pardon for sin, baptism is also the sacrament of repentance: “Baptism also brings another benefit, for it shows us our mortification in Christ and new life in him.”55 Since our baptism signifies an engrafting or incorporation into Christ, it encompasses both parts of our redemption in him, the forgiveness of sins and repentance. “Thus, the free pardon of sins and the imputation of righteousness are first promised us, and then the grace of the Holy Spirit to reform us unto newness of life.”56 As an instrument for communicating to us the whole gospel of Christ, baptism assures us of God’s mercy and signifies our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Just as the twig draws substance and nourishment from the root to which it is grafted, so those who receive baptism with right faith truly feel the effective working of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, together with the working of his resurrection in the vivification of the Spirit.57

A final benefit of the sacrament of baptism, which is implied in these first two, is its function as a sign of our union with Christ. Baptism nourishes and strengthens our faith by providing us with a clear testimony that “we 51 IV.xv.2 (OS 5.286). 52 IV.xv.3 (OS 5.286–7): “But we are not to think that baptism was conferred upon us only for past time, so that for newly committed sins into which we fall after baptism we must seek new remedies of expiation in some other sacraments, as if the force of the former were spent.” 53 IV.xv.3 (OS 5.287): “Quo non negat perpetuam assiduamque peccatorum remissionem ad mortem usque in eo obtineri.” 54 Wendel, Calvin, 320ff, correctly cites Calvin’s indebtedness to Luther on this point, as well as his polemic against the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance as affording a post-baptismal remedy for such sins. 55 IV.xv.5 (OS 5.288): “Alterum etiam fructum affert, quia nostram in Christo mortificationem nobis ostendit, et novam in eo vitam.” 56 IV.xv.5 (OS 5.289): “Itaque primum gratuita peccatorum venia et iustitiae imputatio nobis promittitur, deinde Spiritus sancti gratia, quae nos in vitae novitatem reformet.” 57 IV.xv.5 (OS 5.288).

Church and Sacraments

219

are so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings.”58 Though Calvin nowhere affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation, or that the grace that it confirms is not sufficiently revealed to faith in the Word,59 he insists that baptism effectively leads us to Christ and “performs what it symbolizes.”60 As a supplement to the preached Word, it has Christ for its proper object and effects a vital union with him in which we become his beneficiaries. As a sacrament of our union with Christ, it visibly represents and confirms to our faith the forgiveness of sins, sanctification by the Spirit, and all the other gifts that the Father graciously bestows upon us through Christ in the power of his Spirit.

14.2.2 The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper The second sacrament instituted by Christ for his church is the Lord’s Supper.61 At the opening of his treatment of this sacrament in the Institutes, Calvin accents its special function as a means of nourishing and strengthening faith throughout the whole course of our life. God has received us, once for all, into his family, to hold us not only as servants but as sons. Thereafter, to fulfill the duties of a most excellent Father concerned for his offspring, he undertakes also to nourish us throughout the course of our life […]. To this end, therefore, he has, through the hand of his only-begotten Son, given to his church another sacrament, that is, a spiritual banquet, wherein Christ attests himself to be a life-giving bread upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality.62

Through the sacramental elements of bread and wine, the invisible food that we receive from the flesh and blood of Christ is visibily represented.63 Through our participation in the sacrament, our souls are fed with the fruit of Christ’s sacrificial death for our redemption. Though Calvin readily admits that the union of Christ with believers that is signified in the Lord’s Supper is “by nature incomprehensible,”64 he 58 IV.xv.6 (OS 5.289): “[…] quod certo nobis testificatur, non modo in mortem et vitam Christi nos insitos esse: sed sic ipsi Christo unitos ut omnium eius bonorum participes simus.” 59 See, e.g., IV.xv.20 (OS 5.301): “No one will dare be so insolent toward God as to deny that its promise of itself suffices for its effect. Few realize how much injury the dogma that baptism is necessary for salvation, badly expounded, has entailed.” 60 IV.xv.14 (OS 5.295). 61 For a general treatment of Calvin’s eucharistic theology, see B.A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993). 62 IV.xvii.1 (OS 5.342). 63 IV.xvii.1 (OS 5.342): “Primo signa sunt panis et vinum, quae invisibile alimentum, quod percipimus ex carne et sanguine Christi, nobis repraesentant.” 64 IV.xvii.1 (OS 5.342).

220

Part 3

nonetheless maintains that in the Lord’s Supper we are genuinely united with Christ and fed with his true body and blood. We now understand the purpose of this mystical blessing, namely, to confirm for us the fact that the Lord’s body was once for all so sacrificed for us that we may now feed upon it, and by feeding feel in ourselves the working of that unique sacrifice; and that his blood was once so shed for us in order to be our perpetual drink.65

When the question is raised—what is given to us in this sacrament?— Calvin does not hesitate to affirm that the materia or substantia is “Christ with his death and resurrection.”66 Therefore, I here embrace without controversy the truth of God in which I may safely rest. He declares his flesh the food of my soul, his blood its drink. I offer my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he truly presents them, and that I receive them.67

There is in the Lord’s Supper a real communion with the whole Christ, a communion that conveys to all believers the benefits won for them through Christ’s death and resurrection. Characteristic of Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is his insistence that, although the communion it signifies is a real communion with the body and blood of Christ, the mode of this communion and our reception of Christ cannot be comprehended other than by directing our attention to the power and operation of the Holy Spirit.68 Contrary to Zwingli’s denial of a real participation in the body of Christ, Calvin agrees with his Lutheran and Catholic contemporaries in affirming such a participation. Nevertheless, he finds the explanations given of this presence, whether in terms of a doctrine of transsubstantiation or consubstantiation, seriously flawed. For Calvin, the mode of our communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper must ever remain a mystery.

65 IV.xvii.1 (OS 5.342). 66 IV.xvii.11 (OS 5.354): “Materiam aut substantiam voco Christum cum sua morte et resurrectione.” 67 IV.xvii.32 (OS 5.390). For this reason, Calvin stresses that this communion involves a participation in Christ’s flesh. See, e.g., Comm. John 6:56 (CO 47.156): “Negaret se aliter nostrum fieri, nisi quum fides nostra in eius carnem dirigitur. Neque enim ad Christum Deum unquam perveniet qui hominem negligit. Quare si tibi vis aliquid cum Christo esse commune, cavendum imprimis est ne carnem eius fastidias.” 68 This does not mean, according to Calvin, that there is no real communion with the flesh and blood of Christ. Nor is it to suggest that this communion is actually only a communion with the Spirit. See IV.xvii.7 (OS 5.348): “Neque illi praeterea mihi satisfaciunt, qui nonnullam nobis esse cum Christo communionem agnoscentes, eam dum ostendere volunt, nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt, praeterita carnis et sanguinis mentione.”

Church and Sacraments

221

Now, if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it.69

Therefore, while it may be true that Calvin’s description of this sacramental communion with the body and blood of Christ “leaves one with many obscurities,”70 Calvin’s position includes the claim that the Holy Spirit grants a true communion with Christ through the sacrament. This communion does not assume a doctrine of Christ’s Person that ascribes non-human properties, such as ubiquity, to the body of the resurrected and ascended Christ. For it is only through the Spirit’s operation that we enjoy participation in Christ. “The bond of this connection is therefore the Spirit of Christ, with whom we are joined in unity, and is like a channel through which all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us.”71 Sacramental participation involves a work of the Spirit whereby we are united with the body and blood of the ascended Christ,72 and requires a believing reception of the promises of God’s Word represented in the elements.73 In the Lord’s Supper, there is a “heavenly action” (coelestis actio) wherein “Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us.”74 In this respect, Calvin is quite content to embrace the idea of a real presence and union of the believer with Christ in the Supper through the operation of the Spirit. But he refuses to explain this presence by the expedient of localizing the body of Christ, either by enclosing it within or attaching it to the elements. For Calvin, it is an axiom that the body of Christ, however it be communicated to us in the sacrament, remains in heaven and retains all of its properly human attributes, particularly its localization in space.75

69 IV.xvii.32 (OS 5.389–90): “Porro de modo siquis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat: atque, ut apertius dicam, experior magis quam intelligam.” 70 Wendel, Calvin, 354. 71 IV.xvii.l2 (OS 5.355–6): “Vinculum ergo istius coniunctionis est Spiritus Christi, cuius nexu copulamur: et quidam veluti canalis, per quem quicquid Christus ipse et est et habet, ad nos derivatur.” Cf. IV.xvii.33 (OS 5.391): “[…] incomprehensibili eius virtute ut cum carne et sanguine Christi communicemus.” 72 Comm. Matt 28:20 (CO 45.826). 73 IV.xvii.33 (OS 5.393): “[…] nego plus referre homines ex Sacramento quam vase fidei colligunt.” 74 Comm. 1 Cor 11:24 (CO 49.488). 75 For Calvin, alternative teachings concerning the transsubstantiation or consubstantiation of Christ’s humanity conflict with the Christological principle of Christ’s full and genuine humanity. See, e.g., IV.xvii.26 (OS 5.378–80); Serm. 1 Cor 10:15–18 (CO 48.667); Comm. Acts 1:11 (CO 48:13); IV.xvii.25 (OS 5.376).

222

Part 3

14.3 Church Order and Discipline Though our analysis of Calvin’s doctrine of the church is not intended to be exhaustive, there are two further subjects where his conception of the “twofold grace of God” is significant for its interpretation. These are his understanding of ecclesiastical power (potestas) in the areas of church order and church discipline.76 In both of these areas, Calvin’s position is informed and governed by his peculiar understanding of the distinct, yet inseparable, relation between justification and sanctification in our reception of the gospel. It is interesting to note how Calvin, in his treatment of the church’s power to make laws and institute patterns and ceremonies to promote its life and fellowship, devotes much of his attention to opposing the tyranny over the believer’s conscience exercised by the traditional Canon Law of the church.77 At the beginning of his discussion of this issue, for example, Calvin rejects any approach to this power that would bind the believer’s conscience beyond the Word of God. This is the power now to be discussed, whether the church may lawfully bind consciences by its laws. In this discussion we are not dealing with the political order, but are only concerned with how God is to be duly worshipped according to the rule laid down by him, and how the spiritual freedom which looks to God may remain unimpaired for us.78

Though Calvin readily admits that there are “holy and useful church institutions which provide for the preservation of discipline or honesty or peace,” he strongly repudiates the idea that these may be used to hold the believer in bondage.79 Such constitutions may not “bind souls inwardly before God and […] lay scruples on them, as if enjoining things necessary to salvation.”80 76 Calvin distinguishes three forms of church power or authority. IV.vii.1 (OS 5.133): “Sequitur nunc tertius locus, de Ecclesiae potestate, quae partim in Episcopis singulis, partim in Conciliis, et iis vel provincialibus vel generalibus spectatur. De spirituali tantum potestate loquor, quae propria est Ecclesiae. Ea autem consistit vel in doctrina, vel in iurisdictione, vel in legibus ferendis.” 77 This is particularly noteworthy in view of the common preconception that Calvin’s approach to questions of church order and law was “legalistic” and overly prescriptive, as compared with Luther’s indifference in this area. Those who would speak of a “legalism” here fail to note that this order has nothing to with our justification before God. 78 IV.x.1 (OS 5.164). 79 IV.x.1 (OS 5.165): “Hoc unum contendo, necessitatem imponi conscientiis non debere in quibus rebus a Christo liberantur, nec nisi liberatae, ut antea docuimus, quiescere apud Deum possunt. Unicum Regem agnoscant, suum liberatorem Christum: et una libertatis lege, nempe sacro Evangelii verbo regantur oportet, si gratiam quam in Christo semel obtinuerunt, retinere volunt: nulla servitute teneantur, nullis vinculis astringantur.” 80 IV.x.2 (OS 5.165).

Church and Sacraments

223

For whenever the law or order of the church is made a requisite for salvation and enjoined under the pain of eternal death, the conscience of the believer, which is properly an awareness of guilt or innocence before God’s judgment, becomes unlawfully subject to a human judgment.81 By arbitrarily instituting laws and ceremonies of this sort, the Roman church has imposed a legalism upon believers in which the free forgiveness through Christ promised in the gospel is undercut.82 Having set forth the importance of freedom of conscience in relation to the church’s order, Calvin does grant the usefulness, even necessity, of such order so long as this freedom is preserved, love prevails, and the expediency of good order and decency is rightly appreciated. In arguing for the necessity of church order and constitutions, Calvin makes his appeal to the simple principle “that some form of organization is necessary in all human society to foster the common peace and maintain concord.”83 The church, to the extent that it is a fellowship and community of persons, requires an outward form and order, a set of mutually agreeable practices, for it to function in an orderly fashion.84 Yet these must not be considered necessary for salvation, thereby binding consciences by scruples or identifying their use with the only proper worship of God.85 So far as Calvin is concerned, if any of these be derived elsewhere than from Scripture, love must be our guide and the best judge of “what may hurt or edify.”86 So long as love is our guide, and the rationale for these ordinances and forms is related to what is fitting or expedient, the believer’s freedom of conscience will be preserved and the church’s life well regulated. In his description of the church’s power in the area of jurisdiction and discipline, Calvin’s peculiar insistence upon the distinct, yet inseparable, relation of justification and sanctification is especially evident.87 Though we 81 IV.x.2–7 (OS 5.165–70). In this discussion, Calvin draws the same distinction between the “outward forum” and the “forum of conscience” (conscientiae forum) that he draws elsewhere in connection with our relation to the civil law; see III.xix.15 (OS 4.294–5). Both the civil order and ecclesiastical order, when they enjoin things useful for a well-regulated communal life, bear the same relation to the believer’s conscience: they do not bind the conscience inwardly, that is, before God, but outwardly, that is, in relation to others. 82 IV.x.9–18 (OS 5.171–82). 83 IV.x.27 (OS 5.189): “Hoc primum habeamus, si in omni hominum societate necessariam esse politiam aliquam videmus, quae ad alendam communem pacem, et retinendam concordiam valeat.” 84 IV.x.27–8 (OS 5.189–91). 85 IV.x.27 (OS 5.190): “Id tantum semper in istis observationibus excipiendum est, ne aut ad salutem credantur necessariae, atque ita conscientias religione obstringant: aut ad Dei cultum conferantur, atque ita in illis reponatur pietas.” 86 IV.x.30 (OS 5.193): “Sed quid noceat vel aedificet, charitas optime iudicabit: quam si moderatricem esse patiemur salva erunt omnia.” 87 This whole area of Calvin’s thought is fraught with interpretive difficulties. In my judgment, it can only be rightly interpreted within the context of a clear conception of the “twofold

224

Part 3

cannot thoroughly consider his understanding of this power here, Calvin seeks to steer his way between the harsh and severe form of discipline represented by the sacrament of penance and priestly absolution and an incautious denial of the church’s right to exercise discipline or the power of the “keys of the kingdom” when this should be necessary. On the one hand, Calvin endeavors to maintain the evangelical note of free pardon and reconciliation for anyone who places his trust in God’s mercy. On the other hand, lest this free pardon be abused as a license to sin, he insists upon the church’s right to discipline its members whenever the life-transforming power of the gospel does not make itself manifest. Accordingly, it is not surprising that Calvin’s initial treatment of discipline in the Institutes is occasioned by his discussion of repentance, particularly his critical appraisal of the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance.88 However much Calvin emphasizes the necessarily life-transforming power of Christ’s Spirit in every believer, he strongly rejects the sacrament of penance as an affront to the free justification of believers through the grace of Christ. But I would have my readers note that this is no contention over the shadow of an ass, but that the most serious matter of all is under discussion: namely, forgiveness of sins. For while they [i.e., Scholastics] require three things for repentance—compunction of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of works—at the same time they teach that these things are necessary to attain forgiveness of sins. But if there is anything in the whole of religion that we should most certainly know, we ought most closely to grasp by what reason, with what law, under what condition, with what ease or difficulty, forgiveness of sins may be obtained. Unless this knowledge remains clear and sure, the conscience can have no rest at all, no peace with God, no assurance of security; but it continuously trembles, wavers, tosses, is tormented and vexed, shakes, hates, and flees the sight of God.89

The sacrament of penance, with its requirements of auricular confession, judgment and priestly absolution, penalties and satisfactions militates against the Scriptural understanding of confession of sins and absolution.90 Against this understanding and practice of penance, Calvin asserts that “absolution is conditional upon the sinner’s trust that God is merciful to him, only provided he sincerely seeks expiation in Christ’s sacrifice and is satisfied with the grace offered him.”91 The principal objection to the sacragrace of God.” The difficulty is compounded by the question of the relation between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction or power. Clearly, though Calvin distinguishes them, he never achieved a satisfactory practical resolution of their respective spheres of competence. 88 III.iv.2 (OS 4.87–8); III.iv.14–29 (OS 4.100–19). 89 III.iv.2 (OS 4.87). 90 III.iv.9–13(OS 4.95–100). 91 III.iv.22 (OS 4.111): “Conditionalis enim est absolutio ut confidat peccator sibi propitium esse Deum, modo syncere in Christi sacrificio expiationem quaerat, et acquiescat oblatae sibi

Church and Sacraments

225

ment of penance, then, is its confused understanding of the relation between justification and repentance, since it makes good works and satisfactions a prior condition for, not the fruit of, forgiveness. Calvin’s quarrel with the sacrament of penance is also founded upon his conviction that the power of the keys of the kingdom to bind and to loose inheres in the Word of the gospel alone.92 This power ever remains the exclusive and inherent property of God’s Word, though it is administered through the preaching of the Word, the sacraments, and the church’s ministry and jurisdiction.93 The Word alone, insofar as it presents Christ to us for our justification and sanctification, can release us from anxiety concerning God’s favor and mercy and call us to a sanctified life as members of Christ. The two main tenets of the gospel, when they are communicated to us by means of the Word and sacraments, are adequate in assuring believers of God’s forgiveness and bringing them to repentance. At the foundation of Calvin’s treatment of the church’s jurisdiction and discipline, therefore, is his conception of the primary role of the Word preached94 and the sacraments rightly administered95 in admonishing believers to further progress in the Christian life. Though Calvin places special emphasis upon the disciplinary character of the ministry of the Word and sacraments, and though he rejects the harsh and unevangelical nature of the sacrament of penance, he still reserves to the church the right to engage in special discipline and even excommunication. According to Calvin, the discipline of the church is a derived application of the original and general discipline that inheres in the Word.96 As such, it is a special form of the power of the keys of the kingdom. In his analysis of the discipline of excommunication, Calvin distinguishes between ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction.97 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is “spiritual” in character, and its confusion with civil jurisdiction and worldly gratiae.” At stake in this discussion is God’s character as one who freely justifies the ungodly. Cf. III.iv.24 (OS 4.113): “Now when that thing which God wished to be free is prescribed as necessary to pardon, I call it an utterly intolerable sacrilege, because there is no function more proper to God than the forgiveness of sins, wherein our salvation rests.” 92 III.iv.23 (OS 4.112): “[…] quia absolutio quae fidei servit, nihil aliud est quam testimonium veniae ex gratuita Evangelii promissione sumptum.” Cf. IV.xi.1 (OS 5.196): “Hoc de remittendis et retinendis peccatis mandatum et illa de ligando et solvendo Petro facta promissio non alio debent referri quam ad verbi ministerium […].” 93 IV.xi.1 (OS 5.197): “Habemus, potestatem clavium esse simpliciter in illis locis Evangelii praedicationem: nec tam potestatem esse quam ministerium, si ad homines respicimus.” 94 Cf. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, 85ff, for a good summary of Calvin’s understanding of the power and effect of preaching. 95 Cf. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, 206ff. 96 IV.xi.2 (OS 5.197–8). 97 IV.xi.3–5 (OS 5.199–201). Though it is not a direct concern of ours here, it must be noted that Calvin was never able to implement this distinction in Geneva in a satisfactory way.

226

Part 3

power under the Papacy has led inescapably to many abuses.98 When such ecclesiastical discipline becomes necessary,99 it has three ends in view: upholding the honor of God, protecting the church against corruption, and bringing the sinner to repentance.100 Though Calvin insists upon the church’s authority and obligation to exercise special discipline for these ends, he also cautions against severity in its application. The discipline of excommunication is corrective, not punitive. It aims “to lead the sinner to repentance and to remove bad examples from the midst, lest either Christ’s name be maligned or others be provoked to imitate them.”101 This means that “gentleness is required in the whole body of the church, that it should deal mildly with the lapsed and should not punish with extreme rigor […].”102 Of particular importance to Calvin is the attitude that the church should take toward those who are excommunicated. It should not be one that considers them erased from the number of the elect or despairs of their salvation, for this would be to limit and confine God’s mercy.103 Rather, those excommunicated are to be regarded as “estranged from the church, and thus from Christ—but only for such time as they remain separated.”104 Clearly, there is in this understanding of the church’s power in jurisdiction, as well as in Calvin’s understanding of church order, a particular view of the relation between justification and sanctification. Just as free justification militates against an abuse of the church’s power in the area of church constitutions, so the necessity of sanctification requires a discussion of the exercise of church discipline. Such discipline results from the awareness that, whenever we embrace the gospel through faith, there is a necessary and inevitable alteration in our conduct. The exercise of church discipline witnesses to this necessity and inevitability, and forms part of the church’s proclamation of the gospel as a call to repentance and faith. 98 IV.xi.5 (OS 5.200–1). 99 Calvin envisions different stages of church discipline. The starting point is the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. When this, coupled with private admonition, fails, he speaks of discipline in the narrow sense of excommunication. Cf. IV.xii 2–7 (OS 5.213–8). 100 IV.xii.5 (OS 5.215–6). 101 IV.xii.8 (OS 5.219). Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 198, misstates the situation when he says, “[…] church discipline does not exist in order to promote moral conduct in the church […].” Wendel, Calvin, 300, states more correctly that “Calvin had in view not only the strictly religious attitude but also the morality of the members of the Church; and this is abundantly proved by the orientation that he gave to the Genevan Consistory.” 102 IV.xii.9 (OS 5.220). 103 IV.xii.9 (OS 5.220). Cf. IV.xii.10 (OS 5.221), where Calvin distinguishes what he means by excommunication from the “anathema” pronounced by the Catholic church: “Siquidem noc differt ab anathemate excommunicatio, quod illud, adempta omni venia, hominem devovet et addicit aeterno exitio.” 104 IV.xii.9 (OS 5.220): “Alienos quidem ab Ecclesia iudicare fas est, et proinde a Christo: sed pro eo tempore quo in divortio manent.”

Church and Sacraments

227

14.4 Summary Our description of Calvin’s doctrine of the church and its ministry through Word and sacraments confirms the interpretation of the “twofold grace of God” developed in the previous chapters. It also completes our account of Calvin’s understanding of the way believers are brought into a living relationship with Christ and partake of his benefits. For Calvin, this occurs within the sphere of the church and its communion as the means employed by the Spirit to unite the believer with Christ. In his treatment of the church, Calvin consistently appeals to the integral and necessary relation between the two aspects or benefits of the gospel, justification and sanctification. This holds true in respect to his understanding of the communication of God’s grace in Christ through preaching and the use of the sacraments. Through the preaching of the Word, the hearer is simultaneously called to faith and repentance. The sacraments likewise signify and confirm the veracity of God’s gracious promises and bind the believer more closely to Christ. When Calvin develops his understanding of the church’s power in the area of discipline, he also rejects the harsh and unevangelical character of the medieval church’s practice, particularly the sacrament of penance, because it is inconsistent with the gospel of free justification. He does not, however, wholly repudiate discipline, since this would be to deny the necessary transformation of life that accompanies the believer’s faith in Christ. In each of these features of his doctrine of the church, Calvin emphasizes the inseparable relation between justification and sanctification. Parallel to his emphasis upon the integral relation between justification and sanctification, Calvin also emphasizes the importance of the distinction between them. He notes, for example, that the principal Word communicated in preaching is the announcement of justification and the forgiveness of sins. Though the sacraments strengthen and encourage the believer in the Christian life, they especially serve to confirm and assure the believer of God’s free mercy and love. Furthermore, when it comes to the difficult and often misunderstood subject of the church’s power in the matter of jurisdiction, Calvin emphatically rejects the idea that this power may be used to bind the believer’s conscience before God. Calvin appeals to the distinction between justification and sanctification in order to reject the idea that conformity to a particular jurisdiction or form of order is necessary to the believer’s salvation. In order to complete our consideration of the implications of Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God” for the interpretation of his theology, we need to address two further questions. These questions are intimately related to a proper understanding of the “twofold grace of God” and are

228

Part 3

much disputed in the literature on Calvin’s theology. The first is Calvin’s view of the relation of law and gospel. The second is his understanding of the so-called “practical syllogism” (syllogismus practicus). The treatment of these two disputed subjects in the following chapters will complete our treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” particularly its importance for the interpretation of other significant features of his theology.

15. The “Twofold Grace of God” and Calvin’s Doctrine of Law and Gospel

Calvin’s understanding of the law and gospel is one of the more controversial issues in the interpretation of his theology. The difficulty of rightly interpreting Calvin’s position is evident from the conflicting appraisals given by Lutheran interpreters, who often accuse Calvin of confusing law and gospel,1 and by other interpreters who accuse Calvin of juxtaposing law and gospel or treating them in a dialectical fashion. Calvin himself compounds this difficulty of interpretation by using the term “law” in a sometimes bewildering number of senses and contexts which, if not carefully noted, create a confusing picture. The aim of this chapter will be to determine whether Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” sheds light upon this issue. To achieve this aim, the most important uses of the terms “law” and “gospel” in his writings will first be isolated. After some clarity is achieved on Calvin’s usage of terms, it will be possible to take up the relation of law and gospel that is so disputed in the literature on Calvin’s theology.

15.1 Calvin’s Use of the Terms “Law” and “Gospel” Calvin’s use of the term “law” is exceedingly diverse, yet the root idea from which his particular uses of the term derive is that of the law as God’s orderly will for creation.2 Just as Calvin’s understanding of redemption pre1 Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics, 1:122–3, offers an opinion that is shared by many such interpreters: “The law-Gospel antithesis is thus to be understood as being quite relative, not unconditional. Only ‘by way of comparison’ [per comparationem] is it presented under the extreme form of death and life; for only thus can the Gospel’s full ‘plenitude of grace’ [affluentia gratiae] in ‘comparison’ with the Law be shown. The Law is therefore related to the Gospel as partial grace is related to total grace. What was once a distinction has become a mere dissimilarity [dissimilitude].” For a similar Lutheran assessment, see Thomas Coates, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification,” 333–4. 2 Cf. I. John Hesselink, “Calvin’s Concept and Use of the Law,” chapter V, 1: “The law is first of all the expression of the orderly will of God for his creation.” Also cf. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology, 222: “Law is one of the basic concepts of Calvin’s theology. As we saw formerly, it is related closely to the idea of natural order, or God’s orderly will in creation. But over against man’s freedom God’s orderly will is not actualized directly, as in the case of natural events, but through revelation and man’s response—that is, God’s will has normative value

230

Part 3

supposes a creational framework, so also his understanding of the law’s varied function in the economy of redemption presupposes the idea of a basic, lawfully ordered relation of God as Creator to the creation.3 Though Calvin ordinarily treats the law of God within the actual course of his dealings with his covenant people, his generally appreciative approach to the law stems from his equating this law with God’s righteous will or ordinances for his creation.4 For Calvin, the law, which is summarized in the call for mutual love between creature and Creator and members of the human community, reflects the righteous character of God. It expresses that ordered love or loving order that ought to exist between God and his creation and between those creatures created in his image.5 This law, an awareness of which is indelibly imprinted upon every human conscience, comprises that “model of righteousness” which, if it were obeyed, would enable human life to correspond to the purity and holiness of the Creator.6 It is important to note this basic sense of the term “law” in Calvin’s theology, for it confirms the peculiar structure of Calvin’s theology as discussed in previous chapters. When Calvin treats the law in some of the ways described in this chapter, he does so within the context of this operative view of the law as basically good and an expression of God’s will for the life of his creatures. For this reason, though Calvin does not develop a natural ethic or assume that this law is rightly apprehended or obeyed apart from God’s gracious action in Christ, he nowhere sets the obedience of redeemed humanity against that of God’s original intention for his creatures.7 Rather, for man.” For additional surveys of Calvin’s view of the law and gospel, see Hesselink, “Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law?,” 13–50; Andrew J. Bandstra, “Law and Gospel in Calvin and in Paul,” in Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin, ed. by David E. Holwerda (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 11–39; and Potter, “The ‘Whole Office of the Law’ in the Theology of John Calvin,” 117–39. 3 Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 223, correctly observes that, for Calvin, law firstly means “simply the orderly, harmonious Creator-creature relationship.” Just as Calvin distinguishes between man’s original created perfection and his actual sinful condition, so he distinguishes between law in this basic sense and law as it functions under the conditions of sin. 4 See Parker, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life, 112ff; and Mary Lane Potter, “The ‘Whole Office of the Law’ in the Theology of John Calvin,” 117–39, for a discussion of God’s righteousness and the order of nature as it is represented in the law. 5 That is why, in his description of the Christian life as a life of repentance and restoration of the image of God, Calvin refers to the law as containing the form of that restoration. III.iii.16 (OS 4.72): “Iam et poenitentiae fructus quales sint, intelligi potest: nempe officia pietatis erga Deum, charitatis erga homines, adhaec in tota vita sanctimonia ac puritas. Denique quo maiore quisque studio vitam suam exigit ad normam Legis Dei, eo certiora poenitentiae suae signa edit.” 6 II.viii.5 (OS 3.346–8). 7 Implicit in this general sense of law in Calvin’s thought is the whole question of “natural law” and its relation to the moral law and redemption. On the subject of “natural law,” see Arthur C. Cochrane, “Natural Law in Calvin,” 176–217; John T. McNeill, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” 168–182; J. Bohatec, Calvin und das Recht; Paul Helm, “Equity, Natural Law,

Law and Gospel

231

as one would expect, Calvin interprets God’s redemptive dealings with humanity as consistent with his creative purpose. With respect to the use and function of the law, this means that in redemption God reasserts his claim upon his rebellious creatures by effecting an obedient fulfillment of his will in the lives of those who by faith are joined to Christ and indwelt by his Spirit.8 Within this general presupposition of law as a direct expression of God’s orderly will for creation, Calvin’s particular uses of the term “law” relate to the various positive promulgations of God’s will within the plan of redemption. Though Calvin allows a sense in which God’s law is universally available to all, he is mainly interested in the law as a gracious disclosure of God’s will for the community of faith.9 Not surprisingly, therefore, the overwhelming majority of Calvin’s references to the law concern: first, the “whole religion of Moses”;10 second, the special revelation and promulgaand Common Grace,” in John Calvin’s Ideas, 347–88; idem, “Calvin and Natural Law,” 5–22; William Klempa, “John Calvin on Natural Law,” in Calvin Studies IV, ed. John H. Leith and W. Stacy Johnson (Davidson, NC, 1988), 1–24; and Susan E. Schreiner, “Calvin’s Use of Natural Law,” 51–75. The following comment of Hesselink, “Calvin’s Concept and Use of the Law,” chapter V, 16, expresses the consensus of these interpreters: “That the concepts of natural law, the order of nature, conscience, common sense, etc. assume an important place in Calvin’s theology is incontrovertible. That Calvin does not attempt to build anything approaching a natural ethic, much less a natural theology, on the basis of these concepts, is equally sure.” More recent studies of Calvin’s view of natural law (e.g., those of Helm and Klempa) argue for a greater continuity between Calvin’s view and the medieval theological tradition than older studies that reflect the influence of neo-orthodoxy. 8 In this connection, it should be observed that there is some debate in the literature on Calvin whether he anticipates some features of later Reformed covenant theology, which distinguished an original prelapsarian “covenant of works” from the postlapsarian “covenant of grace.” According to this two-covenant view, the original requirement of perfect obedience to the law of God, which was stipulated in the pre-Fall covenant, is fulfilled by Christ in the covenant of grace. For a persuasive defense of the thesis that the rudiments of this two-covenant scheme are present in Calvin’s theology, see Lillback, The Binding of God, 276–304; and Paul Helm, “Calvin and the Covenant: Unity and Continuity,” EQ 55 (1983): 65–81. For negative assessments of this thesis, which reflect the influence of Barth’s rejection of the older “federal” theology, see James B. Torrance, “The Concept of Federal Theology—Was Calvin a Federal Theologian?,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, 15–40; idem, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in 17th-Century Scotland,” SJT 23 (1970): 51– 76; Donald J. Bruggink, “Calvin and Federal Theology,” RR 13 (1959): 15–22; Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1972); and idem, “Responsible Man in Reformed Theology: Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession,” SJT 23 (1970): 129–56. 9 Hesselink, “Calvin’s Concept and Use of the Law,” chapter III, 13: “[…] the written law not only confirms the law of nature; it makes effective, valid and binding that which man dimly apprehends and imperfectly practices by nature but which because of sin is so debilitated, confused and polluted that in terms of God’s purpose for man and creation it does nothing to win God’s approbation and favor.” 10 See, e.g., II.vii.1 (OS 3.327).

232

Part 3

tion of the moral law to the redeemed community;11 and third, various collections of ceremonial and civil statutes that supplement the moral law.12 Though this last sense or use of the law is important for determining the extent to which the law has been “abrogated” with the coming of Christ,13 the first two of these are of greater importance to an interpretation of Calvin’s view of law and gospel. Calvin often uses the term law to refer, in the first sense distinguished, to the whole religion of Moses.14 In this sense, the law is synonymous with the Old Testament and is comprehensive of the doctrine of salvation and the rule of a godly life, as first set forth under Moses.15 For the purpose of isolating the peculiar meaning of law in Calvin’s theology, however, it is critical to note that Calvin distinguishes between this comprehensive identification of law with the whole ministry of Moses and its restricted reference to the special ministry of Moses. Commenting on Romans 10:5–10, Calvin argues that Paul uses “law” in a “twofold” sense: “At times it means the whole of the doctrine of Moses, and at times that part of it which belonged peculiarly to his ministry, and is contained in its precepts, rewards, and punishments.”16 In his “universal office,” Moses taught and preached repentance and faith, both the rule for godly conduct and the free covenant of life.17 The law of Moses, comprehensively considered, comprised both parts of the covenant: God’s free mercy in redeeming his people, and his instruction in righteousness that characterizes an obedient response to his mercy.18 In his “peculiar” office, however, Moses administered the law in a more narrow sense. Though he taught the subordination of the law to the prom11 See, e.g., II.viii.1–10 (OS 3.343–52); II.vii.6–15 (OS 3.332–40). 12 See, e.g., II.vii.16 (OS 3.341); IV.xx.14–16 (OS 5.486–9). 13 For Calvin, the ceremonial law of the old covenant has been abolished with the coming of Christ. The Old Testament sacrificial system prefigured the redemptive work of Christ and is no longer binding upon the Christian conscience. See, e.g., Comm. Acts 13:39 (CO 48.305); Comm. Acts 6:14 (CO 48.127); Comm. Heb 7:18 (CO 55.91–2); Comm. Heb 10:19 (CO 55.128); II.vii.1 (OS 3.327). These ceremonies were abrogated in “use,” but not in “effect” or “substance.” 14 Comm. Isa, Praefatio (CO 36.19); Comm. Isa 11:3 (CO 36.63); Comm. Rom 15:8 (CO 49.273); Comm. Acts 7:38 (CO 48.151–2); Comm. Matt 17:3 (CO 45.486). 15 This comprehensive sense of the term law underlies Calvin’s treatment of the relation between law and gospel, or the old and new covenant, in Book II of the Institutes. 16 Comm. Rom 10:5 (CO 49.197–8). In this passage, Calvin is attempting to explain “why Paul makes the law agree with faith, and yet sets the righteousness of the law in opposition to the righteousness of faith.” 17 Comm. Rom 10:5 (CO 49.197–8); Comm. Heb 7:12 (CO 55.89). Cf. Comm. Acts 7:38 (CO 48.151–2); Comm. Acts 28:17 (CO 48.567); Comm. Matt 17:3 (CO 45.486); Comm. Luke 24:27 (CO 45.866). 18 Comm. Jer 31:34 (CO 38.697): “[…] the law was not destitute of those benefits which we at this day receive under the Gospel […]. If Moses be regarded, not as opposed to Christ, he was the herald and witness of God’s paternal kindness towards his people; his doctrine also contained promises of a free salvation, and opened to the faithful the door of access to God.” Cf. Comm. Rom 3:21 (CO 49.59).

Law and Gospel

233

ises of God, his teaching, when contrasted with the gospel, emphasized the precepts and rewards of the law. This emphasis upon the “rigid demands of the law” and the curse that falls upon any who do not fulfill them perfectly is an especially prominent feature of Moses’ teaching:19 The promises of the Gospel, however, are found only here and there in the writings of Moses, and these are somewhat obscure, while the precepts and rewards, appointed for those who observe the law, frequently occur. The function, therefore, of teaching the true character of righteousness is, with justification, properly and peculiarly attributed to Moses, as is also the function of showing the nature of remuneration which awaits those who observe it, and what punishment awaits those who transgress it […]. Whenever the word law is used in this restricted sense, Moses is implicitly contrasted with Christ.20

According to Calvin, it is this peculiar ministry of Moses, with its emphasis upon the rigid demands of the law, that the apostle Paul contrasts with the gospel in his epistles. It is the law—narrowly considered and wrested from its setting within the free covenant of grace—that leads to bondage, since it promises favor only on the condition of perfect obedience.21 When Calvin draws this distinction between the universal and the peculiar ministry of Moses, he clearly wants to distinguish between the law as it finds its proper setting within the covenant of grace22 and the law as it is considered in isolation from this setting. To underscore the sense in which this latter, narrow meaning of law has been “wrested” from its covenantal context, Calvin sometimes speaks of the “bare precepts” or the “bare law” (nuda lex). Whenever the apostle Paul denigrates the law or the righteousness of the law, he does so in the precise sense that, “[w]ithout Christ, there is nothing in the law but inexorable rigor, which adjudges all mankind to the wrath and curse of God.”23 This “bare law,” because it has been torn 19 Comm. Rom 7:2 (CO 49.120–1); Comm. Rom 7:4 (CO 49.212). 20 Comm. Rom 10:5 (CO 49.198). 21 See, e.g., Comm. Gal 4:21 (CO 50.236): “To be under the law here signifies to come under the yoke of the law, with the condition that God will deal with you according to the covenant of the law and that you in turn bind yourself to keep the law.” Cf. Comm. Harm. Moses, Finis et Usus Legis (CO 23.727–8); Comm. Ezek 18:14–17 (CO 40.437–8). 22 Calvin’s positive evaluation of the law’s function as providing direction in the Christian life derives from his conviction that, properly speaking, the law is set within the context of the covenant. Hesselink, “Calvin’s Concept and Use of the Law,” chapter III, 20, puts it well: “[H]is concept of the law is Hebraic, not Greek or Roman, and therefore the law is fundamentally a direct and positive expression of the will of God, not an ‘opus alienum”; it is a dynamic concept inseparable from the covenant and hence not a means for establishing a relationship with God but rather a means by which God’s chosen people can respond in obedience and gratitude to a redemption already received.” Cf. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 93: “The law of God is embedded in this grace and loyalty which He shows towards His people, the church; God in entering into a covenant with His people makes an absolute claim upon them. This divine demand is the meaning of the law.” 23 Comm. Ps 19:8 (CO 31.201).

234

Part 3

from the evangelical promises of the covenant, serves only to minister death.24 Though this “bare law” genuinely promises eternal life to any who would perfectly conform to its precepts,25 […] considered in itself, [it] can do nothing but bind those who are subject to its wretched bondage by the horror of death […], for it promises no blessing except on condition, and pronounces death on all transgressions.26

In acknowledging this narrow meaning of the term “law,” Calvin recalls his distinction between “evangelical” and “legal” promises that played an important role in his description of the relation of works to justification: I call “promises of the law” not those sprinkled everywhere in the books of Moses, since in them many evangelical promises also occur, but those properly pertaining to the ministry of the law. Promises of this sort, by whatever name you wish to call them, declare there is recompense ready for you if you do what they enjoin.27

For Calvin, these legal promises were never intended to play an independent role with regard to the evangelical promises. Rather, they were intended to direct us to the only ground of our salvation, apart from the law, in God’s mercy. That the apostle Paul or other biblical authors should ever speak of the law in this narrow sense, wrested from its evangelical setting, is only owing to the false claim of some that salvation can be gained through keeping the law.28 Therefore, Calvin argues that the apostle Paul, in developing the doctrine of free justification, […] was disputing with perverse teachers who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the law. Consequently, to refute their error he was sometimes compelled to take the bare law in a narrow sense, even though it was otherwise graced with the covenant of free adoption.29

Before turning to Calvin’s use of the term “gospel,” a comment should still be made regarding Calvin’s use of the term “law” for the special promulgations of the moral law to the community of faith. The majority of Calvin’s 24 Comm. Rom 3:21 (CO 49.59); Comm. Rom 3:20 (CO 49.57); Comm. Exod 19:1 (CO 24.193–4); Comm. Harm. Moses, Finis et Usus Legis (CO 23.725–8). 25 IV.xiii.13 (OS 5.250); II.vii.2 (OS 3.329); II.vii.7 (OS 3.333); Comm. Matt 19:17 (CO 45.538); Comm. Rom 3:20 (CO 49.57). 26 Comm. Rom 8:15 (CO 49.168–9). 27 III.xvii.6 (OS 4.258): “Legales promissiones apello, non quae ubique sparsae sunt in libris Mosaicis (quando in illis quoque Evangelicae multae occurrunt) sed quae proprie ad Legis ministerium pertinent.” 28 See, e.g., II.vii.2 (OS 3.329). 29 II.vii.2 (OS 3.329): “Se quia disceptatio illi fuit cum perversis doctoribus, qui Legis operibus iustitiam nos mereri fingebant, ut eorum errorem refutaret, coactus est interdum nudam Legem praecise accipere: quae tamen gratuitae adoptionis foedere alioqui vestita est.” Clearly, Calvin understands this appeal to the nuda lex to be a misuse of the law, since the latter has its proper place within the covenant of grace.

Law and Gospel

235

references to the law refer to the specific requirements of God’s righteous will, which were given to the community of faith in the economy of redemption. Here Calvin wants to refer to that “perfect pattern of righteousness” (absolutum in ea iustitiae exemplar eminere) which is set forth in the law, and chiefly in the Ten Commandments.30 This moral law, which presupposes the promises and free mercy of God as its proper setting,31 posits a “rule of life” that remains perpetually valid for the people of God.32 It provides a comprehensive description of a just and holy life,33 and by its means we are able rightly to distinguish between good and evil.34 In this respect, Calvin invariably argues that the law is holy and good; it provides us with nothing less than that pattern of conduct that forms human life after the “archetype of divine purity,” and that may be summarized in terms of love for God and for others:35 Now it will not be difficult to decide the purpose of the whole law: the fulfillment of righteousness to form human life to the archetype of divine purity. For God has so depicted his character in the law that if any man carries out in deeds whatever is enjoined there, he will express the image of God, as it were, in his own life […]. First, indeed, our soul should be entirely filled with the love of God. From this will flow directly the love of neighbor.36

When this meaning of the law is rightly appreciated, it will be clear that Christ himself, far from overthrowing or discarding the law, may be termed its “surest interpreter.”37 For through Christ we are taught the true “nature of the law, its object, and its scope.”38

30 II.vii.13 (OS 3.339). See also II.viii.5 (OS 3.347); Comm. Acts 7:38 (CO 48.151); Comm. Matt 19:17 (CO 45–538); Comm. 1 Tim 1:5 (CO 52.253). This conception of the law forms the basis of Calvin’s “third use,” to which we will turn in the following. 31 According to Calvin, this is underscored by the “preface” to the Ten Commandments. These commandments delineate, not the way or the condition for salvation, but that quality of life expected of a grateful member of the covenant community. See, e.g., II.viii.13 (OS 3.354–5); II.viii.14 (OS 3.355); Comm. Harm. Moses (CO 24.210ff). 32 Comm. Gal 4:4 (CO 50.227): “Regula enim bene et sancte vivendi perpetua est.” Cf. Comm. Gal 3:25 (CO 50.221). 33 See, e.g., Comm. Harm. Moses, Praefatio (CO 24.7–8); Comm. Deut 5:22 (CO 24.205); Comm. Deut. 29:29 (CO 24.256); Comm. Ezek 18:14–17 (CO 40.137); Comm. Isa 5:13 (CO 36.111); Comm. Isa 24.5 (CO 36.401). 34 Comm. Rom 12:1 (CO 49.235–6); Comm. Ps 19:8 (CO 31.200); Comm. Ps 19:9 (CO 31.202). 35 Comm. 1 Tim 1:5 (CO 52.253); Comm. Matt 23:23–8 (CO 45.631–2); Comm. Josh 22:5 (CO 35.552) ; II.viii.54 (OS 3.392–3). 36 II.viii.51 (OS 3.390). 37 II.viii.26 (OS 3.368): “[…] certissimus Legis interpres.” 38 Comm. Matt 5:21 (CO 45.175): “Christ is not made into a new Law-giver, adding anything to the everlasting righteousness of his Father, but is to be given the attention of a faithful Interpreter, teaching us the nature of the law, its object, and its scope.”

236

Part 3

Since Calvin’s use of the term “gospel” has already been treated in preceding chapters, our discussion of it here can be brief. Corresponding to the broader and narrower uses of the law discussed in the foregoing, Calvin also affirms a broader and narrower use of the “gospel”: Some extend the word gospel to all the free promises of God scattered even in the law and the prophets. And it cannot be denied that whenever God declares that he will be propitious to men and forgives their sins, he sets forth Christ at the same time, whose property it is to shed abroad the rays of joy wherever he shines. I admit therefore that the Fathers partook of the same gospel as ourselves, so far as the faith of free salvation is concerned. But because the Spirit is wont to say in the Scriptures that the gospel was first proclaimed when Christ came, let us keep to this manner of expression. Let us also hold to the definition of the gospel that I have given, that it is a solemn proclamation of the grace revealed in Christ.39

Whenever we find the promises of God’s free mercy and favor also under the old covenant, we may speak of the “gospel” or of the revelation of God’s fatherly love toward us.40 These are but anticipations of the substance of the gospel that is given in Christ. Yet, strictly speaking, the gospel refers to the teaching that concerns Christ’s person and work as our Mediator.41 In its proper sense, the gospel denotes the knowledge of Christ42 that clearly reveals God’s favor, and that pacifies our consciences by assuring us of his mercy.43

15.2 Unity of Substance, Difference of Form of Administration After this brief exposition of Calvin’s use of the terms “law” and “gospel,” we now turn to the relation between law and gospel in Calvin’s theology. Not suprisingly, Calvin’s treatment of this relation varies according to the specific uses of law and gospel outlined, particularly according to whether he uses law in a more comprehensive or more restricted sense. This varied 39 Comm. John, Argumentum (CO 47.vii). Cf. II.ix.2 (OS 3.399): “From this it follows that the word ‘gospel,’ taken in the broad sense, includes those testimonies of his mercy and fatherly favor which God gave to the patriarchs of old. In a higher sense, however, the word refers, I say, to the proclamation of the grace manifested in Christ.” 40 II.ix.2 (OS 3.399). 41 Comm. Acts 1:1 (CO 48.2). 42 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 16:21 (CO 49.290); Comm. Acts 13:47 (CO 48.312); Comm. John 3:16 (CO 47.63); Comm. 2 Tim 3:16 (CO 52.384); Comm. Eph 2:20 (CO 51.175). 43 Comm. Eph 2:17 (CO 51.173): “Observe also, that the gospel is the message of peace, by which God declares himself favorable to us, and brings down to us his fatherly love. Take away the gospel, and war and enmity remain between God and men; and, on the other hand, the proper effect of the gospel is to give peace and calmness to the conscience, which would otherwise be tormented by wretched disquiet.”

Law and Gospel

237

usage accounts for his alternately treating law and gospel as wholly compatible or antithetical. The most frequently discussed aspect of Calvin’s treatment of the relation between law and gospel is his affirmation that they are one in substance or reality, yet distinct in form or mode of administration. As Calvin puts it: The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation (administratio tamen variat).44

When Calvin makes this affirmation and explains its importance, he treats the law in the comprehensive sense described above. The law, when it comprises the “whole religion of Moses,” is equivalent to the old covenant. In this respect, the law differs from the gospel, not in substance, but only in form.45 The unity of substance that Calvin asserts between the law and the gospel is a unity in teaching, in faith, and preeminently in Christ. In his commentary on Jeremiah 31:31ff, for example, Calvin observes: [B]y substance I understand the doctrine, for God in the gospel brings forward nothing but what the law contains. We henceforth see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of doctrine.46

Though we may legitimately speak of an “old” and a “new” covenant, there is essentially but one covenant of grace between God and his people “by the same law and the same doctrine,”47 since God “is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself.”48 The patriarchs shared, though imperfectly, the same blessings as believers in Christ. For the covenant of grace embraces life, salvation, and the whole of blessedness, whether under its old or new form of administration.49 Believers under the old covenant also 44 II.x.2 (OS 3.404): “Patrem omnium foedus adeo substantia et re ipsa nihil a nostro differt, ut unum prorsus atque idem sit: administratio tamen variat.” 45 The classic discussion of this aspect of the relation between law and gospel in Calvin’s theology is found in his Institutes II.ix-xi (OS 3.398–436). For a detailed study of this relation, see H.H. Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirchen: Verlag Erziehungsverein, 1958). 46 Comm. Jer 31:31ff (CO 38.390). 47 II.x.1 (OS 3. 403): “[…] eadem lege atque doctrinae eiusdem quae inter nos viget vinculo fuisse ei foederatos […].” Cf. Comm. Acts 15:11 (CO 48.352): “Peter affirms that we are completely at one with the fathers, because they no less than we, placed the hope of salvation on the grace of Christ. And so, making the law and the gospel one, because he bears in mind the object of teaching (quod ad finem doctrinae spectat), he removes from the Jews the stumbling block […].” 48 Comm. Jer 31:31ff. (CO 38.390–1). Thus, for Calvin, the unity of law and gospel resides in God’s character as one who is self-consistent and faithful to his covenant. 49 II.x.8 (OS 3.408–9).

238

Part 3

reposed all of their hope in God and his promises, and their justification derived its validity from grace alone through the one Mediator, Jesus Christ.50 Accordingly, when Calvin initially discusses the relation between law and gospel, he asserts that both treat under two heads—free justification and renewal of life—the whole of God’s gracious covenant with his people. According to Calvin, this unity of substance between the covenants is preeminently a unity in Christ. God’s action in Christ, though definitively and irrevocably manifested in the incarnation and work of the Mediator, is not to be restricted to the new covenant, since Christ is the wellspring of all God’s gracious works of mercy and renewal. Consequently, Calvin does not hesitate to state that the “Old Testament fathers (1) had Christ as pledge of their covenant, and (2) put in him all trust of future blessedness.”51 In order to highlight this unity in Christ of law and gospel, Calvin refers to Christ variously as the scopus, the finis, the animus, the vita and the perfectio of the law:52 For what is proposed to us in Christ, unless what God had promised in the law? and therefore Christ is called the end of the law, and elsewhere its spirit: for if the law be separated from Christ, it is like a dead letter: Christ alone gives it life.53

Christ is the one who has fulfilled and accomplished all that the law promised and required.54 Without Christ, the whole ministry of Moses would vanish and remain an ineffective letter.55 For only through Christ has the law been quickened, perfected, and established; apart from him, it is at best useless and at worst a “wretched slavery.”56 However, because the whole of Scripture and the entire fabric of revelation concerns the person and work of Christ, it is possible to affirm a basic and essential unity between the law and the gospel.57

50 II.x.4 (OS 3.405–6); II.x.l7 (OS 3.417–8). 51 II.x.23 (OS 3.421). 52 See, e.g., Comm. Ezek 16:61 (CO 40.395); Comm. 2 Cor 3:16–17 (CO 50.45–6); Comm. John 1:17 (CO 47.18); Comm. James 1:25 (CO 55.395–6); Comm. John 5:46 (CO 47.129); Comm. Eph 2:20 (CO 51.175); Comm. Heb 4:10 (CO 55.49); Comm. 1 Peter 1:18 (CO 55.224); Comm. Rom 10:4 (CO 49.196); II.vii.2 (OS 3.328). 53 Comm. Ezek 16:61 (CO 40.395). 54 Comm. James 1:25 (CO 55.396): “He alone is the accomplishment and perfection of the law.” 55 Comm. John 5:46 (CO 47.129): “Therefore, without Christ the whole ministry of Moses vanishes.” 56 Comm. Matt 12:8 (CO 45.320): “Et certe exra Christum misera est legis servitus, a qua solus ipse absolvit […].” Cf. Comm. 2 Cor 4:3 (CO 50.49); Comm. Heb 7:18 (CO 55.92). 57 See, e.g., Comm. 2 Cor 3:16 (CO 50.45): “[…] the law itself becomes twisted to them [Jews] and like a labyrinth, until it is referred to its own end (ad suum finem), which is Christ […].

Law and Gospel

239

If this were the sum of Calvin’s references to the relation between law and gospel, it would be easy to judge his position an ahistorical treatment of the relation between the old and new testaments. However, parallel to this insistence upon the unity of substance between the law, comprehensively considered, and gospel, Calvin also speaks of their difference in mode of administration. In his Institutes, Calvin enumerates five differences between the old and new covenants that are differences in form rather than in substance.58 First, while in the Old Testament God represented his spiritual blessings “under earthly benefits,” in the gospel he “has more plainly and clearly revealed the grace of the future life […].”59 Second, in the Old Testament God’s truth was displayed in types, images, and ceremonies, but in the New Testament the substance of the truth has been clearly manifested in Christ.60 Third, the Old Testament also differs from the New just as “literal” differs from “spiritual” doctrine, or as death and condemnation differ from life and righteousness.61 Fourth, while the Old Testament brought “bondage” and produced “fear,” the New Testament has brought “freedom” and the assurance of God’s favor to those who believe.62 And fifth, there is a difference in the extent of the covenant of grace under the old and new dispensations. Until the advent of Christ, God set apart a single nation to favor with his mercy, but now the “calling of the Gentiles [is] a notable mark of the excellence of the New Testament over the Old.”63 In his enumeration of the five differences between the law and the gospel, Calvin includes two, the third and the fourth, that actually represent a more significant antithesis than the language “difference in form of administration” would imply. Since this antithesis will be considered in the following section, here we need only note that these five differences concern such matters as the relative obscurity and clarity of the testaments. They refer to a difference of degree, not of reality, and have to do with the progressive nature of God’s revelation in the history of redemption. Although in the Old Testament God taught his people by way of “types and And what is said of the law applies to the whole of Scripture, for when it is not taken as referring to Christ, its one aim and centre (ad unicum scopum), it is distorted and perverted.” 58 II.xi.1 (OS 3.423): “Eas omnes sic esse dico, et ostensurum me profiteor, ut ad modum administrationis potius quam ad substantiam pertineant. Hac ratione nihil impedient quominus eaedem maneant veteris ac novi Testamenti promissiones, atque idem ipsarum promissionum fundamentum, Christus.” 59 II.xi.1 (OS 3.423). This difference is a common theme in Calvin’s writings, and is based upon the analogy of the difference in teaching appropriate to our “childhood” and our “maturity.” Cf. II.xi.2 (OS 3.424–5); II.xi.5 (OS 3.427–8); II.xi.6 (OS 3.428–9). 60 II.xi.4 (OS 3.426–7). 61 III.xi.7 (OS 3.429–30). 62 III.xi.9 (OS 3.431–2). 63 II.xi.11–12 (OS 3.433–5).

240

Part 3

shadows,” accommodated to their youthful immaturity, the New Testament clearly sets forth the reality of his truth and grace in Christ. Consequently, Calvin remarks: [F]aith has its degrees of seeing Christ. The ancient prophets beheld Christ afar off, as he had been promised to them, and yet were not permitted to behold him present, as he made himself intimately and completely visible when he came down to men from heaven.64

Though Christ was known under the law, he has only at length been clearly set forth in the gospel.65 In this sense, the difference between law and gospel may be fairly compared with the difference between the first sketch of a painter and the final, lifelike representation.66

15.3 The Contradiction (repugnatio) of Law and Gospel Though interpreters of Calvin’s theology have argued that he presents altogether too harmonious and non-dialectical a conception of the relation between law and gospel, Calvin does grant that there is a sense in which they are contradictory to each other. The contradiction or antithesis that exists between law and gospel is directly expressed by his distinction between the first and the third uses of the law, and his understanding of the function of the law in respect to justification and sanctification.67 Calvin’s distinction between the first and third uses of the law has already been touched upon in connection with our discussion of his distinction between the “bare law” and the law set within the context of the covenant of grace. However, it is critical to Calvin’s understanding of the contradiction (repugnatio) of law and gospel that these two uses of the law be clearly delineated. By the first use of the law, Calvin means to refer to the law’s function, when considered solely in terms of its specific precepts and demands, to teach us our need for God’s grace and mercy: 64 Comm. John 8:56 (CO 47.214–5). 65 II.ix.4 (OS 3.401–2): “Sed non ita successit Evangelium toti Legi, ut diversam rationem salutis afferret: quin potius ut sanciret ratumque esse probaret quicquid illa promiserat, et corpus umbris adiungeret […]. Unde colligimus, ubi de tota Lege agitur, Evangelium respectu dilucidae manifestationis tantummodo ab ea differere.” 66 Comm. Heb 10:1 (CO 55.121): “The apostle has established this difference between the law and the gospel, that the former has foreshadowed in elementary and sketchy outline what today has been expressed in living and graphically printed color. In this way he again confirms what he has said above that the law was not useless nor its ceremonies meaningless.” 67 As we shall see, Calvin’s distinction between the first and third uses of the law roughly corresponds to the distinction between justification by grace alone and sanctification or repentance. Cf. III.xix.2 (OS 4.283).

Law and Gospel

241

The first part is this: while it shows God’s righteousness, that is, the righteousness alone acceptable to God, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness.68

Considered by itself, the law functions like a “mirror”69 which exposes our need for God’s mercy by contrasting our actual unrighteousness with that perfect righteousness that alone can stand before God’s tribunal.70 Due to its inexorable demands and “severity,” the law teaches us to flee to God’s grace in Christ for salvation.71 According to Calvin, this first function of the law should be carefully contrasted with the third or principal office of the law in the repentance and sanctification of believers. Here the law, stripped of its power to condemn by God’s gracious acceptance of us in Christ, serves as a pattern of righteousness and an exhortation to the Christian life: The third and principal use, which pertains more closely to the proper purpose of the law, finds its place among believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns […]. [Believers] still profit by the law in two ways. Here is the best instrument for them to learn more thoroughly each day the nature of the Lord’s will to which they aspire, and to confirm them in the understanding of it […]. Again, because we need not only teaching but also exhortation, the servant of God will also avail himself of this benefit of the law: by frequent meditation upon it to be aroused to obedience, be strengthened in it, and be drawn back from the slippery path of transgression.72

Once the law has been deprived of its ability to condemn by free justification in Christ, it becomes a proper guide and suitable norm for the Christian life of obedience. On the basis of this distinction between the first and third uses of the law, Calvin articulates the antithesis between law and gospel as an antithesis between justification by works of the law and justification by grace. For Calvin, there is an insuperable contradiction between law and gospel when 68 II.vii.6 (OS 3.332): “Prima est, ut dum iustitiam Dei ostendit, id est, quae sola Deo accepta est, suae unum quenque iniustitiae admoneat, certiorem faciat, convincat denique ac condemnet. 69 II.vii.7 (OS 3.332): “Ita Lex instar est speculi cuiusdam, in quo nostram impotentiam, tum ex hac iniquitatem, postremo ex utraque maledictionem contemplamur.” Cf. Comm. Gal 3:24 (CO 50.220): “For in the commandments of God, as in a mirror (tanquam speculo), they could see how far they were from true righteousness.” 70 II.vii.8 (OS 3.334). 71 See, e.g., II.vii.8 (OS 3.334); II.v.7 (OS 3.305); II.viii.3 (OS 3.345); Comm. John 16:10 (CO 47.360). Interestingly, in this last passage, Calvin speaks of this function as the proprium munus of the law. This is contrary to his usual statements that the third use is the principal and proper use of the law. It is also important to note that Calvin attributes this same office to Christ, whose perfect righteousness exposes our unrighteousness. See Comm. Gal 2:17 (CO 50.197). 72 II.vii.12 (OS 3.337–8): “Tertius usus, qui et praecipuus est, et in proprium Legis finem propius spectat, erga fideles locum habet, quorum in cordibus iam viget ac regnat Dei Spiritus […].”

242

Part 3

it comes to the question of the cause or ground of our justification. The law, since it sets forth an “impossible condition for salvation,”compels us to seek a righteousness apart from the law that alone can make us acceptable to God.73 In order to emphasize this antithesis between the law and the gospel, Calvin speaks variously of the law as a “minister of death,”74 as a “yoke” and a “burden,”75 and as that which “kills” and “curses.”76 Due to the corruption of our nature through sin, the law serves only to intensify our awareness of condemnation and death. Though the law was originally given as a pattern of righteousness that leads to life, the reality of sin and disobedience means that it has become a “perpetual and inevitable accident (accidens) of the law” to kill and to curse.77 Though this is not the principal purpose of the law, and though our own corruption causes the law to obtain this function, this “accidental” ministry of the law has now been perpetually and inseparably joined to it.78 In his commentary on Romans 7:10, Calvin notes the significance this function of the law has in relation to the gospel: Paul states two things here: (1) The commandment shows us the way of life in the righteousness of God, and was given in order that we might obtain eternal life by observing the law of the Lord, unless prevented by the corruption which is in all of us. (2) None of us, however, obeys the law; rather, we plunge head over heels into the course of life from which the law recalls us. The law, therefore, can bring us nothing but death. We need to make this distinction between the nature of the law and our own wickedness. It follows from this that it is an accident that the law inflicts a mortal wound on us, just as if an incurable disease were rendered more acute by a healing remedy. The accident, I admit, is inseparable from the law, and for this reason the law, as compared with the gospel, is elsewhere referred to as “the ministration of death.” The point, however, holds good, that the law is not injurious to us by its own nature, but because our corruption provokes and draws upon us its curse.79

However true it may be that the law is not evil or even principally a minister of death, it always compels us to search elsewhere for life and mercy than in the fulfillment of its requirements. 73 II.vii.5 (OS 3.330); Comm. Gal 2:16 (CO 50.196); Comm. 1 Thess 5:19 (CO 52.175–6); II.v.9 (OS 3.307); II.v.12 (OS 3.312). This righteousness, which is impossible for us to attain, has been manifested in Christ’s obedience and atoning sacrifice accomplished in our place. 74 Comm. Gen 11:16 (CO 23.45); Comm. Harm. Moses, Finis et Usus Legis (CO 24.26); Comm. Jer 31:31 (CO 38.690); Comm. Ezek 20.11 (CO 40.482–3). 75 Comm. Gal 2:12 (CO 50.192). 76 Comm. 2 Cor 3:7 (CO 50.41–2); Ga1 3:10 (CO 50.208) 77 Comm. 2 Cor 3:7 (CO 50.42): “Since the law abandons a man to himself it consigns him to inevitable death, while the gospel leads him to Christ and thus opens the gates of life. To kill is thus a perpetual and inevitable accident of the law […].” 78 See, e.g., Comm. Acts 7:38 (CO 48.151); Comm. 1 Cor 15:57 (CO 49.565). 79 Comm. Rom 7:10 (CO 49.126). Cf. Comm. Gal 3:10 (CO 50.208): “Hence we conclude that it is accidental that the law should curse, though at the same time perpetual and inseparable (Hinc colligimus, quod lex maledicit, esse accidentis, sed perpetua et inseparabilis).”

Law and Gospel

243

It becomes clear, then, that the real and principal antithesis between the law and the gospel resides in the cause of justification.80 Whenever Calvin refers to the contrast between the law and the gospel, he does so in terms of the contrast between the righteousness of works and the righteousness of faith. These are two mutually exclusive causes or modes of justification:81 The law justifies him who fulfills all its commands, whereas faith justifies those who are destitute of the merit of works and rely on Christ alone. To be justified by our own merit and by the grace of another are irreconcilable; the one is overthrown by the other.82

There is an irrevocable difference between the law’s promise of life, which is on the condition that we keep the law, and the gospel’s promise of life, which is solely on the condition that we embrace the righteousness and favor of another.83 This difference is one between a righteousness that inheres in us, and a righteousness that is from God. The one righteousness is a righteousness of works performed in obedience to the law; the other righteousness is the free gift of God’s grace in Christ.84 Calvin draws this clear contrast between the law and the gospel, then, as a contrast between justification by works and by faith.85 In this respect, the antithesis between law and gospel is based upon the same consideration that compelled Calvin to distinguish between justification and sanctification: the desire to preserve the singular cause of our justification in God’s free mercy and goodness.

80 Comm. Acts 15:11 (CO 48.351): “Peter would be deceiving us unless there was a cleavage between the grace of Christ and the yoke of the law (eius iugum). Accordingly, all who desire to obtain life in Christ must depart from the righteousness of the law. For this contradiction does not refer to doctrine but to the cause of justification.” 81 Comm. Gal 3:12 (CO 50.209): “The contradiction between the law and faith lies in the cause of justification.” See also Comm. Gal 3:17 (CO 50.213): “[…] in regard to justification, either the law justifies a man by the merit of works or the promise bestows righteousness freely.” Cf. Comm. Gal 3:21 (CO 50.218). 82 Comm. Gal 3:11 (CO 50.208): “Haec simul non possunt convenire: iustificari proprio meriti et aliena gratia: ideo alterum evertitur ab altero.” 83 Comm. Hab 2:4 (CO 43.531): “[A]s to justification, the law accords not with the gospel any more than light with darkness: for the law promises life to those who serve God; and the promise is conditional, dependent on the merits of works. The gospel also does indeed promise righteousness under condition; but it has no respect to the merits of works. What then? It is only this, that they who are condemned and lost are to embrace the favor offered them in Christ.” 84 Comm. Phil 3:9 (CO 52.49): “For whereas the law employs works, faith presents man naked before God, that he may be clothed with the righteousness of Christ.” See also Comm. Rom 2:12 (CO 49.37); Comm. Ezek 18:14–17 (CO 40.438). 85 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 8:3 (CO 49.138); Comm. Rom 8:15 (CO 49.148–9); Comm. Acts 13:39 (CO 48.306); Comm. John 6:68 (CO 47.162–3); Comm. Acts 14:3 (CO 48.319); Comm. Acts 15:10 (CO 48.349).

244

Part 3

15.4 The Law in the Christian Life Having established this basic antithesis between law and gospel in terms of the ground of our justification, Calvin does not draw the conclusion that this excludes any further positive function of the law in the Christian life. As we have already noted, Calvin continues to speak of the law having a proper and even principal function as a guide for the Christian’s life of repentance and renewal in righteousness. For Calvin, it does not follow from this antithesis that the law has no role to play in the Christian life anymore than that repentance is unnecessary because justification is by grace alone. The law’s positive function as a guide to the life of renewal need not lead inevitably to a new form of bondage, nor to an attempt to secure our standing before God on the basis of works. So long as we have a proper understanding of Christian freedom, and so long as we note the difference between the “letter” of the law and the Spirit, the usefulness of the law within the context of the Christian life need not be rejected. In order to complete our account of the relation between the law and the gospel in Calvin’s thought, his understanding of Christian freedom and this difference between the “letter” and the Spirit require our attention. According to Calvin, Christian freedom is an “appendage of justification,” since it follows upon a proper appreciation of salvation by grace alone.86 The first part of this freedom consists in the believer’s freedom of conscience in relation to the yoke and curse of the law.87 Having embraced God’s mercy and the righteousness of Christ, the believer is free from any slavish or scrupulous obedience to the law which is motivated by a desire to secure acceptance with God. Justification by grace alone frees us from the severity of the law, secures our standing with God, and assures us that he will receive us as a loving Father, however short we may fall from that perfect righteousness prescribed in that law.88 The gospel of justification by grace frees us from any obedience to the law compelled by the threat of death, if such obedience were imperfect or unworthy of God’s approval. Furthermore, since Christian obedience is undergirded by this awareness of God’s mercy and love, it is a free and willing obedience. Christian obedience is not constrained by compulsion, but by loving gratitude for God’s fatherly favor:

86 III.xix1 (OS 4.282): “[…] vero appendix est iustificationis.” For this reason, Calvin takes up the subject of Christian freedom in the Institutes immediately after treating the doctrine of justification. 87 III.xix.2–3 (OS 4.283–4). 88 Comm. Gal 5:23 (CO 50.256).

Law and Gospel

245

The second part [of Christian freedom], dependent upon the first, is that consciences observe the law, not as if constrained by the necessity of the law, but that freed from the law’s yoke they willingly obey God’s will.89

True Christian freedom is not a freedom of the “flesh” that knows no law; it is better understood as a “free servitude” or a “serving freedom.”90 No longer constrained by a stricken conscience, the believer who knows God’s favor toward sinners in Christ takes delight in freely conforming to the will of God. Such obedience, because it issues from faith and an awareness of God’s goodness, meets with God’s approval, whatever its shortcomings.91 Though it is an obedience to the law and commandments of God, it is the obedience of those who have been liberated from bondage to fear or from the mindset of a mercenary who expects a reward in proportion to the service rendered. Calvin elaborates this understanding of Christian freedom and the function of the law within the Christian life in his treatment of the difference between the “letter” and the Spirit. For Calvin, those justified by faith and free from the dominion of sin and the severity of the law are governed by the Spirit. This is the wellspring of the Christian life: the vivifying presence and operation of the Spirit who, rather than supplanting the precepts and commandments of God, grants them new life.92 In the life of the believer, the “dead letter” of the law, which can only condemn and bring under condemnation, is transfigured and revived by the Spirit of Christ. Speaking of this contrast between the letter and the Spirit, Calvin observes that “we are 89 III.xix.4 (OS 4.284): “Altera, quae ex superiore illa pendet, ut conscientiae non quasi Legis necessitate coactae, Legi obsequantur: sed Legis ipsius iugo liberae, voluntati Dei ultro obediant.” Cf. III.xix.5 (OS 4.285): “Rursum si ab hac severa Legis exactione, vel potius toto Legis rigore libertatae, paterna lenitate se a Deo appellari audiant, hilares et magna alacritate vocanti respondebunt, et ducentem sequentur.” 90 Comm. 1 Peter 2:16 (CO 55.246): “The immediate conclusion is that we obtain liberty in order that we may more promptly and more readily obey God. That is simply freedom from sin, and the dominion is taken from sin, so that men may become obedient to righteousness. In short, it is a free servitude, and a serving freedom.” Cf. Comm. 2 Peter 2:19 (CO 55.468); Comm. Rom 6:20 (CO 49.117). 91 Calvin often notes that faith “purifies” our hearts by stripping away the pretense of selfjustification. It thereby “sanctifies” our acts of obedience by stripping them of that slavish scrupulosity and proud self-assertion that inevitably marks an obedience to the law motivated by a desire to secure our standing before God. See, e.g., Comm. 1 Cor 8:7 (CO 49.433); Comm. 1 Cor 10:29 (CO 49.470); Comm. 1 Tim 4:5 (CO 52.297); Comm. Rom 14:14 (CO 49.265); Comm. Rom 14:23 (CO 49.268); Comm. Titus 1:15 (CO 52.417–8). 92 Comm. Gal 5:23 (CO 50.256): “But Paul’s meaning is profounder and less obvious: where the Spirit reigns, the law has no longer any dominion. By moulding our hearts to his own righteousness, the Lord delivers us from the severity of the law, so that he does not deal with us according to its covenant, nor does he bind our consciences under its condemnations. Yet the law continues to perform its office of teaching and exhorting. But the spirit of adoption sets us free from subjection to it.”

246

Part 3

delivered from the law, when God looses us from its rigid demands and its curse, and endues us with his Spirit, in order that we may walk in his ways.”93 Through the operation of the Spirit in our hearts, both confirming our free adoption and regenerating us in newness of life, the letter of the law that can only kill is replaced by a new Spirit-empowered form of obedience. In Calvin’s development of this difference between the letter of the law and the Spirit, he continues to affirm the law’s usefulness in the Christian life. However, he ascribes to the Spirit the role of rendering that law “pleasing and agreeable” to us.94 By virtue of the more abundant outpouring of the power of the Spirit in the New Testament, Calvin believes that the law, while it has been abrogated as a dead letter, has been revived as a guide for the life of faith.95 Consequently, Calvin understands the gospel to have brought something new that was not present under the old covenant. Through the office of the “Spirit of regeneration,” the law of God now penetrates the heart and reforms the believer from within.96 Though the pattern of righteousness mirrored in the law remains inviolable, it has pleased God “to manifest the efficacy of the Spirit more in the gospel than in the law, for it is the work of the Spirit alone to teach men’s minds effectively.”97 This means that there has been a significant transformation in our relation to the law; no longer external to us, the law has been engraved upon our hearts and minds, so that we may now speak of a sincere and ardent, even spontaneous, conformity to the will of God. Though this conformity is consistent with and guided by the precepts of the law, it involves an inward conformity to the true aim of 93 Comm. Rom 7:6 (CO 49.123). Hesselink, “Calvin’s Concept and Use of the Law,” chapter VIII, 83, makes a fitting comment on the relation between this work of the Spirit and the law: “The rule of the Spirit […] this is the essence of the tertius usus legis.” Calvin sees no inherent contradiction between a spontaneous, Spirit-empowered life and the use of the law as a guide and norm for discerning the will of God. 94 Comm. Acts 15:10 (CO 48.35): “Finally, when we have the present help not only of the grace of the Holy Spirit, to direct us, but also of the free forgiveness of sins, to deliver and absolve us from the curse of the law, then that word of Moses is fulfilled, ‘The commandment is not beyond you.’ […] Accordingly, provided that the rigor of the law is removed, the teaching of the law will not only be tolerable, but also pleasing and agreeable; and we must not refuse the bridle which restrains us gently, but does not drive us further than is expedient.” 95 Comm. Rom 6:14 (CO 49.113); Comm. Rom 6:15 (CO 49.113–4); Comm. Matt 5:17 (CO 45.171–2); Comm. Heb 8:10 (CO 55.103). 96 Comm. Jer 31:33 (CO 38.690–1): “He now shows a difference between the law and the gospel, for the gospel brings with it the grace of regeneration: its doctrine, therefore, is not that of the letter, but penetrates into the heart and reforms all the inward faculties, so that obedience is rendered to the righteousness of God.” Cf. Comm. Dan 9:27 CO 41.187). 97 Comm. 2 Cor 3:6 (CO 50.40). Cf. Comm. Rom 7:6 (CO 49.123): “Before our will has been formed according to the will of God by the Holy Spirit, we have nothing in the law but the outward letter. This, it is true, bridles our external actions, but it does not in the least restrain the fury of our lust.”

Law and Gospel

247

the law, namely, perfect love to God and neighbor, which the Spirit alone can effect in us.98

15.5 Summary Because Calvin is convinced that our redemption involves a reassertion of the Triune God’s claim upon us, he understands redemption to yield a new relationship with God that includes both his free acceptance of us and his sovereign rule over us through the Spirit. We are not only justified by grace alone through faith, but we are also renewed through the office of the Spirit. In relation to our justification, Calvin strongly repudiates any appeal to the works of the law, since we cannot keep God’s law perfectly and are acceptable to God only through the law-keeping and righteousness of another. However, Calvin nowhere draws the conclusion from this antithesis between the law and the gospel that God repudiates the proper purpose of the law, namely, to describe the character of the life of righteousness or to delineate the form that love for him and for others should take.99 For Calvin, the law, which basically reveals the loving order or ordered love that ought to exist between the Creator and the creature, is not supplanted by the gospel of free justification. Rather, Calvin understands our free adoption and justification in Christ, though not based upon our works of the law, to issue in a life of free conformity to the law of God. Within the context of the gospel, the law describes and continues to guide the life of those who embrace Christ by faith. Revived and quickened by the Spirit of regeneration, those who are newly and freely subject to God live after the pattern of God’s will and commandments, thereby attesting their adoption by God the Father and proving the powerful presence of his Spirit. Therefore, to borrow the phrase used by Calvin to describe the relation between justification and sanctification, it is permissible to say that law and gospel are distinct yet inseparable elements in the administration of the gospel in the lives of those who through faith are united with Christ.

98 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 2:29 (CO 49.45); Comm. Phil 3:6 (CO 52.46); Comm. Acts 7:38 (CO 48.152); Comm. James 1:25 (CO 55.395–6); Comm. Josh 23:9 (CO 25.560); Comm. Ezek 18:31 (CO 40.455). 99 Cf. Potter, “The ‘Whole Office of the Law’ in the Theology of John Calvin,” 138, who offers a summary that coincides with our conclusion: “The mutual exclusion of the law and the gospel is that part of the whole doctrine of the law that is seen from the perspective of justification by grace […]. The continuity between the law and the gospel is that part of the whole doctrine of the law that is seen from the perspective of the grace of sanctification.”

16. The “Twofold Grace of God” and the “Practical Syllogism”

One of the controversial issues in Calvin studies that is closely linked to his position on the “twofold grace of God,” is Calvin’s view of the so-called “practical syllogism” (syllogismus practicus). Though this issue is usually associated with the sociological analysis of post-Reformation Calvinism by Max Weber, it has been an issue in studies of Calvin’s theology as well.1 For our purpose, it is not necessary to enter into this discussion in a general way, since we are specifically concerned with the light Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” sheds upon it. What insight does Calvin’s understanding of the relation between these two aspects of God’s grace in Christ provide in considering his approach to the “practical syllogism”? Before attempting to answer this question, it will be helpful to delineate what is meant by the language of a “practical syllogism.” One of the much discussed problems in medieval and Reformation theology was the problem of the assurance of salvation. In his exposition of the doctrine of justification, Calvin is clearly concerned with this issue. In fact, a primary component of his criticism of medieval theology relates to Calvin’s conviction that its understanding of justification undermines the believer’s confidence and certainty of God’s mercy. Since medieval theology based salvation at least in part on the righteousness of works, Calvin frequently notes that this deprives the believer of any genuine assurance. In the construction of his own viewpoint, however, Calvin also emphasized the necessity of good works as an inevitable accompaniment of justification. This emphasis, together with Calvin’s development of the doctrine of election, raises in a special way the question of the role of good works in assuring the believer of salvation. If good works invariably accompany justifica1 For Weber’s discussion of this issue, see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic, 110, who argues that Calvin may be distinguished from his followers in that he never derived the certainty of salvation from good works: “For Calvin himself this was not a problem […]. Accordingly, to the question of how the individual can be certain of his own election, he has at bottom only the answer that we should be content with the knowledge that God has chosen and depend further only on that implicit trust in Christ which is the result of true faith.” For general treatments of Calvin’s position, see Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 169–81; idem, “Syllogismus Practicus?” 158–79; Georg Klingenburg, Das Verhältnis Cavins zu Butzer, 64–77; Kwang-Woong Yu, “Syllogismus practicus bei Calvin,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser, 256–69; and Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, 198–203.

“Practical Syllogism”

249

tion by God’s grace in Christ, and if the elect are chosen in order that they might be renewed in holiness, may not such good works and renewal in holiness play a part in determining our status before God? Wilhelm Niesel, in his The Theology of Calvin, provides a helpful summary of the point of contention in respect to this “practical syllogism”: In order to elucidate this matter we must especially note that it is not here simply a question of justification and sanctification, or faith and works, nor is the point how far the attitude and conduct of another person allow one to make a judgment about his state of grace. The question is simply and solely whether works have any sort of significance for one’s personal assurance of salvation.2

As Niesel’s summary indicates, the “practical syllogism” involves not merely the assertion that good works are necessary in the lives of those justified and chosen of God. It involves the further assertion that the believer’s good works serve to grant assurance of salvation and confirmation of election—hence the phrase “practical syllogism.” From the conjunction of the major premise, “every true believer does good works,” and the minor premise, “I do good works,” we may conclude that “I am a true believer,” properly confident of the genuineness of my faith and salvation. Undoubtedly, as Niesel acknowledges, this practical syllogism assumes a certain position on the relation of faith and good works. But it also goes further in affirming the propriety of appealing to this relation in order to determine one’s state of grace.3

16.1 Election and the Assurance of Salvation Though we have not previously treated Calvin’s understanding of election, it is specifically his development of this doctrine that has occasioned discussion of the “practical syllogism” in his and subsequent Reformed 2 Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 170. Niesel rightly notes that Klingenburg, in his Das Verhältnis Calvins zu Butzer, overlooks this in his treatment of the syllogismus practicus. The question is not simply, Do good works play any role in attesting true faith?, but rather, Do they play a role in assuring one’s personal salvation? 3 It is often argued that Calvin differs from Luther at this point, since he grants a more positive role to good works in assuring believers of their salvation. For an evaluation of this claim, see Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, esp. 1–15, 199–203, 244–48; and idem, “Crying to God on the Brink of Despair: The Assurance of Faith Revisited,” in Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis, 351–8. Zachman argues that Luther and Calvin concur in ascribing the “foundation” of assurance to God’s gracious promise in Christ and the “confirmation” of assurance to good works. However, he also argues that there is an “instability” in Calvin’s theology of election that permitted later Reformed theology to embrace the “practical syllogism” as a principal means of obtaining assurance.

250

Part 3

theology.4 While it should be clear that our analysis of Calvin’s theology runs contrary to the analysis of many who consider it an imposing and closed system of thought, finding its starting point in the absolute sovereignty of God or the divine will, Calvin’s development of the doctrine of election does raise some difficult problems of interpretation. Among them is this problem of the assurance of salvation in relation to good works. The alleged difficulty here springs from the manner in which Calvin develops his understanding of election. In his treatment of election, Calvin argues that it is necessary and beneficial to consider this doctrine, though he also warns that it may be a labyrinth for those who are not restrained within the limits of revelation.5 The benefit of treating election resides in its function, which is to persuade us that God’s free mercy is the wellspring of salvation and to teach us a corresponding humility.6 Salvation by grace alone is nowhere more evident than in God’s eternal election, by which he has predestined some to salvation, others to destruction.7 Since God’s election is the single fountain of salvation, it is not possible to speak of our worthiness or the merit of our faith or repentance, as the ground of our redemption.8 For Calvin the whole issue and basic motif of election is God’s gratuitous mercy: 4 For treatments of Calvin’s doctrine of election that emphasize its close relation with his understanding of salvation sola gratia rather than treating it as an example of a theology derived from an abstract principle of divine sovereignty, see Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 159–81; Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 209–19; Jacobs, Prädestination und Verantwortlichkeit bei Calvin; Faber, Symphonie von Gott und Mensch, 199–215; idem, “Immer schon überholt? Zur Frage der Prädestination in der Theologie Johannes Calvins,” TZ 56/1 (2000): 50–68; and Christian Link, “Calvins Erwählungslehre Zwischen Providenz und Christologie,” in Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation, ed. Peter Opitz (Zürich: Theologscher Verlag, 2003), 169–93. Calvin’s positive exposition of election at the conclusion of Book III of the Institutes illustrates how election is an alternative way of expressing and securing the gratuitous character of salvation. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 135–9, argues that too much should not be made of this placement of the doctrine of predestination, since it reflects the influence of the Pauline order of doctrinal topics in the epistle to the Romans. For an extended treatment of the influence of a Barthian view of election upon the interpretation of the location of the doctrine of election in Reformed orthodoxy, see Richard A. Muller, “The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or Non-issue?,” CTJ 40/2 (2005): 184–210. 5 III.xxi.1–2 (OS 4.368–71). Calvin cautions against undue curiosity and speculation concerning election that exceeds the limits of scriptural teaching and what is expedient. Cf. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 160–1. 6 III.xxi.1 (OS 4.368–70). Cf. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 168: “[…] it gives pointed expression to the fact (which was already implied in the doctrine of justification and sanctification) that the ground of our salvation in every respect lies uniquely and solely in God and nowhere else.” Also cf. Comm. Eph 1:4 (CO 51.148). 7 This is the heading of III.xxi (OS 4.368): “De electione aeterna qua Deus alios ad salutem, alios ad interitum praedestinavit.” 8 III.xxi.5–6 (OS 4.373–7); III.xxii.1–2 (OS 4.379–82); III.xxii.7–9 (OS 4.387–90); Comm. 1 Peter 1:1 (CO 55.207–8); Comm. Rom 9:11 CO 49.177); Comm. Ezek 20:5–8 (CO 40.475).

“Practical Syllogism”

251

Inasmuch as God establishes your salvation in himself alone, why do you descend to yourself? Since he appoints for you his mercy alone, why do you have recourse to your own merits? Seeing that he confines your thought within his mercy alone, why do you turn your attention in part to your own works?9

The doctrine of election is not a superfluous matter when contrasted with our justification by grace alone through faith. Rather, it is but another way to affirm clearly that the honor in salvation belongs to God alone. In order to preserve this motif of God’s mercy in election, Calvin repeatedly argues that all the blessings of salvation flow from the free mercy of God and are not the ground of election. According to Calvin, “God’s eternal election is the foundation and first cause both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God.”10 Election is the “mother of faith” (fidei mater),11 and it is “by justification that God designates his elect.”12 This is particularly important when it comes to the renewal of life accomplished in the lives of believers. Election is unto holiness, and may not be based upon it: The fact that they were elected “to be holy” plainly refutes the error that derives election from foreknowledge, since Paul declares all virtue appearing in man is the result of election.13

The restoration of the image of God in us is the “effect” and not the cause of election. Election is the ultimate source of the believer’s reformation of life in holiness and righteousness.14 Therefore, the calling of the gospel, faith, repentance, and the regenerating operation of the Spirit are all the fruits of God’s election, not its reason or ground. The question of the “practical syllogism” that requires our attention, then, is whether Calvin permits an appeal to good works in securing the believer’s knowledge of election. Because Calvin argues strongly for an understanding of election based upon God’s free mercy, and because he treats good works and repentance as a necessary effect of this election, it might seem reasonable to suppose that he would permit such an appeal. Furthermore, since the believer may not inquire curiously into God’s secret 9 III.xxii.6 (OS 4.385). 10 Comm. Eph 1:4 (CO 51:147). Calvin then adds, “From this we infer that holiness, innocence, and every virtue in men, are the fruit of election.” 11 III.xxii.10 (OS 4.392): “[…] election […] fidei mater est.” See also Comm. Acts 13:48 (CO 48.314); Comm. John 17:6 (CO 47.379); Comm. John 17:9 (CO 47.380–1). 12 III.xxi.7 (OS 4.379): “[…] iustificatione electos suos Dominus signat.” 13 III.xxiii.2 (OS 4.381): “[…] fuisse electos, ut essent sancti, errorem aperte refutat qui electionem ex praescientia deducit; quando reclamat Paulus, quicquid virtutis in hominibus apparet, electionis esse effectum.” Cf. III.xxii.3 (OS 4.382); Comm. Gen 25:23 (CO 23.351–2). 14 Comm. 2 Peter 1:3 (CO 55.446); Comm. Dan 12:1 (CO 41.289–90).

252

Part 3

counsel and purposes, it might seem natural for Calvin to refer to these “effects” of election as an evident proof of an antecedent cause. Though this may appear to be a reasonable supposition, nowhere in his treatment of election does Calvin base the believer’s certainty of election upon good works. When this issue is raised in his treatment of election in the Institutes, he refers to certain “signa posteriora” by which certainty of election is obtained.15 These signa posteriora are not our good works or attitude toward God, but those manifest signs of God’s favor and mercy toward us in the administration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather than admitting any speculative inquiry into God’s will or any direct, unqualified appeal to good works, Calvin directs the believer to the concrete manner in which salvation is administered.16 The specific reference of these signa posteriora is indicated by Calvin when he refers to the calling of God as the starting point for all inquiry concerning the certainty of our election: “Let this, therefore, be the way of our inquiry: to begin with God’s call, and to end with it.”17 The mystery of divine election does not imply its obscurity or hiddenness; to the contrary, this mystery of his free mercy has been revealed in the calling of the gospel of Christ, and is clearly set forth in the Word.18 When we are called through the gospel to faith and repentance, this calling should be for us a “sign”19 and an “evidence”20 of election. God’s counsel is known through the hearing of the Word of the gospel, in which we have an “expression of the inmost feeling of God” and a revelation of “what he has decreed about our salvation before the creation of the world”:21 God has called us through the gospel, not because he has suddenly taken thought for our salvation but because he had so determined from all eternity. Christ has appeared 15 III.xxiv.4 (OS 4.414): “Ergo ut perperam faciunt qui electionis vim suspendunt a fide Evangelii, qua illam ad nos sentimus pertinere: ita optimum tenebimus ordinem si in quaerenda electionis nostrae certitudine, in iis signis posterioribus, quae sunt certae eius testificationes, haereamus.” 16 Cf. Faber, “Immer schon überholt?,” 54–60; and idem, “Johannes Calvin: Theologe und Prediger des Lebens aus Heilsgewissheit,” 227–43. Faber’s studies offer a persuasive critique of the older assumptions regarding Calvin’s doctrine of election (such as: that this is Calvin’s “central dogma”; that election mitigates the importance of history and human responsibility in the proper use of the divinely-appointed means of grace; etc.). 17 III.xxiv.4 (OS 4.415): “Sit igitur haec nobis inquirendi via, ut exordim sumamus a Dei vocatione, et in ipsam desinamus.” Calvin entitles this chapter (OS 4.410), “Electionem sanciri Dei vocatione […].” 18 III.xxiv.1–2 (OS 4.410–3). This calling depends upon election and is comprised of the preaching of the Word and illumination by the Spirit. 19 III.xxi.7 (OS 4.379). 20 Comm. 1 Thess 5:24 (CO 52.180). See also Comm. 1 Cor 1:9 (CO 49.312–3); Comm. 1 Tim 2:3 (CO 52.208); Comm. Isa 65:2 (CO 37.418). 21 Comm. Heb 6:17 (CO 55.79–80).

“Practical Syllogism”

253

for that salvation now not because the power to save has but recently been conferred upon him, but because this grace was laid up for us in him before the creation of the world. The knowledge of these things has been revealed to us by faith.22

In the calling of the gospel to faith in Christ and repentance, we have a sufficient indication of God’s will and favor toward us, one which is adequate to grant assurance of salvation. In the phrase, “the knowledge of these things has been revealed to us by faith,” the key motif of Calvin’s treatment of election and the assurance of salvation is expressed. Such assurance derives, not from curious inquiry beyond the parameters of God’s revelation, but from an exclusive focus upon God’s revelation in Christ.23 For Calvin, Christ is the “mirror”24 and the “author”25 of our election. We not only obtain a clear knowledge and certainty of election through him, but we also know him to be the one in whom the Father has chosen us in love: Accordingly, those whom God has adopted as his sons are said to have been chosen not in themselves but in his Christ […]. But if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive him as severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election.26

Since Christ is the fountain and the revelation of God’s counsel, fellowship with him through faith is a sufficiently manifest proof of our salvation.27 Consequently, faith derives its certainty and assurance from the Word or from the certitude of God’s mercy in Christ disclosed to us in the gospel. 22 Comm. 2 Tim 1:10 (CO 52.353). 23 Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 162ff, emphasizes this aspect of Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of election. This emphasis corresponds to Calvin’s treatment of the knowledge of God more generally. 24 III.xxii.1 (OS 4.380): “[…] in ipso Ecclesiae capite lucidissimum esse gratuitae electionis speculum.” 25 Comm. John 13:18 (CO 47.311): “[…] autorem electionis.” Cf. Comm. John 1:16 (CO 47.16–17); Comm. John 17:24 (CO 47.390). Kuizenga, “The Relation of God’s Grace to His Glory in John Calvin,” 101–2, overstates the matter when he argues that Calvin never makes Christ the author of election. Kuizenga does so in order to support the view that Christ is merely the means for accomplishing the Father’s electing purpose. 26 III.xxiv.5 (OS 4.415–6): “Proinde quos Deus sibi filios assumpsit, non in ipsis eos dicitur elegisse, sed in Christo suo[…]. Quod si in eo sumus electi, non in nobis ipsis reperiemus electionis nostrae certitudinem: ac ne in Deo quidem Patre, si nudum illum absque Filio imaginamur. Christus ergo speculum est in quo electionem nostram contemplari convenit, et sine fraude licet.” 27 Comm. Matt 11:27 (CO 45.219): “For many, when they hear that none are heirs of eternal life save those whom God chose before the foundation of the world, ask anxiously how they can know about the secret counsel of God. And so they enter into a labyrinth and can find no way out. But Christ tells them to come straight to him and seek assurance of salvation in him. The meaning therefore is that life is opened up to us in Christ himself, so that none will be partakers of it but he who enters by the gate of faith.” Cf. Comm. John 6:40 (CO 47.147).

254

Part 3

This is the one way to certainty: that we direct our attention to Christ in faith, knowing him to be “the earnest of our election.”28 Rather than directing our attention to ourselves or the works done by us, we must look to the calling of the gospel, and to the manner in which God administers his mercy toward us.

16.2 Assurance from the Word and Spirit In his treatment of the certainty of election, Calvin does not make a direct appeal to good works. This is also true in other contexts where he deals with the subject of assurance. Before treating the role he grants good works in confirming salvation, it will be helpful to recall and develop two points that he consistently makes in considering this issue. These are, first, his general derivation of assurance from faith’s focus upon the Word of the gospel, and second, the function he ascribes to the Holy Spirit in sealing the promises of the gospel upon the believer’s heart. When Calvin articulates his doctrine of free justification, perhaps the single most crucial issue he considers is the believer’s assurance of salvation. Contrary to the position espoused by his Scholastic contemporaries, Calvin asserts that justification by grace alone through faith preserves the “peaceful rest and serene tranquility” of the believer’s conscience before God.29 Because our justification is not based upon our own righteousness, but upon the righteousness of another, it provides us with a peace of conscience that comes from being intent upon God’s promises alone and turning from all thought of our own worth or merit.30 For Calvin, this is the reason it is so important that justification be distinguished from repentance, and that faith be exclusively oriented to the grace of God in Christ. Whenever they are confused and the assurance of faith is partly based upon good works, the certainty of God’s mercy is relinquished and we become subject to the miserable bondage of fear and insecurity before God. A cursory glance at Calvin’s treatment of justification by faith will show that it is precisely this lack of assurance in late medieval Scholastic theol28 Comm. Acts 13:48 (CO 48.314): “Again, because many get themselves involved in confused and thorny speculations, when they search out their salvation in the hidden purpose of God, let us learn that the election of God is confirmed by faith for this purpose, that our minds may be turned to Christ, as the earnest of our election, and let them seek for no other certitude than that which is disclosed to us in the gospel.” Cf. Comm. 1 Cor 1:9 (CO 49.313). 29 III.xiii.1 (OS 4.215). 30 III.xiii.4 (OS 4.219): “Ergo aut pereat nobis iustitia necesse est, aut ne veniant in considerationem opera, sed sola fides locum habeat, cuius isthaec natura est, aures arigere, oculos claudere: hoc est, uni promissioni intentam esse, cogitationem avertere ab omni hominis vel dignitate vel merito.” Cf. III.xiii.3 (OS 4.217–8).

“Practical Syllogism”

255

ogy that most disturbs him. Frequently, Calvin notes that the idea of justification based partially upon works leads naturally to the Scholastic doctrine of “moral conjecture” and uncertainty, since the believer’s standing before God is judged from the standpoint of good works: Hence we may judge how dangerous is the Scholastic dogma that we can discern the grace of God toward us only by moral conjecture, according as every man regards himself as not unworthy of it. Indeed, if we should judge from our works how the Lord feels toward us, for my part, I grant that we can in no way attain it by conjecture. But since faith ought to correspond (respondere) to a simple and free promise, no place for doubting is left.31

According to Calvin, it is an inevitable consequence of the idea of justification on the basis of an intrinsic righteousness that the believer is deprived of any certainty of salvation; this idea compels us to a form of the “practical syllogism” in which good works, because they are a partial ground of our salvation, are also the basis for personal certainty. However, since our righteousness is never perfect and we do not always discover ourselves to be zealous in the doing of good works, such an introspective approach to the question of assurance always leaves us with at best a conjecture, and at worst a “wretched anxiety.”32 In contrast to this position, Calvin argues that the only viable antidote to such anxiety is to direct our faith wholly to the Word and promises of God in Christ. It is simply inconsistent with the essential character of faith for it to vacillate, since “it is the property of faith to rest upon God and to be established in his Word.”33 Since true faith “corresponds” (respondet) to the promises of God, it produces a “cheerful and undaunted” conviction that God is true to his Word and will not withdraw his overtures of mercy.34 Because faith always directs its focus to the pledge of the Father’s love towards us in Christ, it is only unbelief to remain uncertain of God’s favor toward us:35 If we become heirs of salvation by works, then faith in our adoption will disappear, and the promise of it will be abrogated. But it is necessary that both faith and promise should be certain. Our adoption, therefore, comes to us by faith, so that it may be 31 III.ii.38 (OS 4.47–8). 32 Comm. 1 Cor 4:4 (CO 49.365): “Papists take advantage of this passage in order to shake the assurance of faith to its foundations, and indeed I confess that if their teachings were accepted we would only be in a state of wretched anxiety all our life. For what sort of peace of mind shall we possess, if it were decided from our works whether we are acceptable to God?” Cf. Comm. Eph 2:20 (CO 51.167); Comm. Rom 5:2 (CO 41.89). 33 Comm. John 3:33 (CO 47.73–4). 34 Comm. Deut 31:6 (CO 25.344). Cf. Comm. Ezek 13:22, 23 (CO 40.297); Comm. 1 Cor 10:12 (CO 49.461–2). 35 Comm. Gal 4:6 (CO 50.228).

256

Part 3

secured, by being based on the goodness of God alone. The apostle […] estimates faith by its unshakeable certainty, and considers hesitancy and doubt as unbelief, which abolishes faith and abrogates the promise. This, however, is the doubt which the schoolmen call moral conjecture, and which they substitute for faith.36

Calvin answers the question of the assurance of faith by reiterating the correlation that exists between faith and the Word of God in Christ. If God is true to his Word, and if Christ is a true pledge of his fatherly favor, then faith cannot but produce an undoubted conviction and assurance of salvation.37 Corresponding to this correlation between faith and the Word, Calvin also notes the importance of the correlation between the Word and the Spirit in effecting the assurance of salvation. Missing from the position of those who speak of “moral conjecture” or of the “uncertainty” of faith is the awareness that the Spirit invariably accompanies and confirms the truth of the Word. This work of the Spirit does not take place apart from the Word, but takes place through the Word, sealing it upon the hearts of believers and rendering it effective. A seal distinguishes what is genuine and certain from what is unauthentic and fraudulent. This office Paul ascribes to the Holy Spirit […]. Our minds never become so firm that the truth of God prevails with us against all the temptations of Satan, until the Holy Spirit has confirmed us in it. The true conviction which believers have of the Word of God, of their own salvation, and of all religion, does not spring from the feeling of the flesh, or from human and philosophical arguments, but from the sealing of the Spirit, who makes their consciences more certain and removes all doubt. The foundation of faith would be frail and unsteady if it rested on human wisdom, and therefore, as preaching is the instrument of faith, so the Holy Spirit makes preaching efficacious.38

36 Comm. Rom 4:16 (CO 49.79). Cf. Comm. Rom 4:14 (CO 49.77–8). 37 See Joel R. Beeke, “Making Sense of Calvin’s Paradoxes on Assurance of Faith,” in Calvin Studies Society Papers, 1995, 1997, ed. David Foxgrover (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1998), 13–30, who argues that Calvin regards assurance as an “essential” component of faith, though he also admits the presence of doubt or uncertainty in the subjective experience of genuine believers. Beeke rightly notes that this must be borne in mind, lest Calvin’s position on the assurance of faith be too radically contrasted with later Reformed theologians who were not as insistent upon the conscious assurance of salvation as a necessary and invariable expression of true faith. Cf. Zachman, “Crying to God on the Brink of Despair,” who takes issue with Beeke’s interpretation of Calvin’s position, arguing that Calvin is closer to Luther than later Calvinism on the subject of the “practical syllogism.” Zachman’s interpretation depends upon the claim that Calvin’s position is “inherently unstable” (358) and allows for the later emphasis of some Calvinists upon the “practical syllogism.” Since Calvin never appeals to works as anything more than a “confirmation” of the genuineness of the believer’s faith, I do not believe his view exhibits the kind of instability that Zachman alleges. 38 Comm. Eph 1:13 (CO 51.153).

“Practical Syllogism”

257

This means that no account of the certainty of faith is complete without acknowledging the office of the Spirit in effecting faith through the Word. Calvin’s description of this office of the Spirit takes various forms. Corresponding to the twofold character of faith as a sure knowledge and a firm persuasion of God’s truth, the operation of the Spirit is twofold, enlightening the intellect (mens) and confirming the soul (animus) in the truth.39 On the one hand, the Spirit’s office is that of providing a reliable “witness” to the truth of the gospel.40 This witness is one that the Spirit alone can bear, since it is a witness to the truth of God, which cannot be derived from any earthly perception or knowledge through the senses: This is why the Sophists refuse to admit that we can be certain of the grace of God. For they measure faith by the perception (apprehensione) of the human senses. But Paul contends that this knowledge (scientia) is superior to all knowledge (notitia) and justly, for if the faculties of man could reach it, Paul’s prayer that God would bestow it must have been unnecessary. Let us remember, therefore, that the certainty of faith is knowledge (scientia), but it is acquired by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not by the acuteness of our own intellects.41

On the other hand, the Spirit’s office consists in confirming and sealing this truth of the gospel upon the hearts of believers. Not only does the Spirit attest the veracity of the preaching of the gospel, but the Spirit also impresses and confirms the gracious favor of God upon our hearts, so that we may be assured that this trustworthy witness concerns our adoption.42 The principal emphasis of Calvin’s doctrine of assurance, therefore, is upon faith’s conviction regarding the promises of the gospel, which is sealed by the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word. Such assurance begins with an awareness that God’s free mercy in Christ is the single foundation of our salvation. Because this is its single foundation, the assurance of faith derives from an exclusive concentration upon its proclamation in the Word, and from the witness and sealing of the Spirit effected through that Word. When it comes to this assurance of faith, Calvin invariably rejects an appeal to good works as a suitable source for determining the believer’s state of grace.43 39 Comm. Eph 1:13 (CO 51.153). 40 Comm. 1 Cor 2:12 (CO 49.342): “Therefore we may know that this is the nature of faith, that conscience has, by the Holy Spirit, a sure witness of God’s goodwill towards itself, and relying on this, it confidently calls on God as Father.” Cf. Comm. 1 Cor 2:11 (CO 49.341). 41 Comm. Eph 3:19 (CO 51.188). 42 See, e.g., Comm. Rom 8:31 (CO 49.162–3); Comm. Eph 4:30 (CO 51.212); Comm. Rom 8:16 (CO 49.150); Comm. 1 Cor, Argumentum (CO 49.300). 43 It should also be noted that Calvin understands the sacraments to complement the preached Word in sealing the promises of God and strengthening our faith. This role of the sacraments in confirming our faith is of a piece with the whole conception of certainty derived from the

258

Part 3

16.3 Good Works as a Secondary Proof of Faith If Calvin derives the certainty of election and faith from the administration of the gospel through preaching and through the operation of the Spirit, the question remains whether he assigns any role to good works in confirming this certainty. Are there any instances in his writings where some appeal is made to good works in attesting the veracity and genuineness of faith? The answer to this question must be a qualified “yes.” Calvin does in fact make an appeal to good works, but this appeal does not concern the foundation of faith’s confidence in the grace of God. It does not relate to the manner in which the believer becomes convinced of God’s favor and mercy, but only to the manner in which true faith is attested, confirmed, or demonstrated.44 When considering this role of good works in attesting the genuineness of faith, Calvin is anxious to beware the danger of misunderstanding. When referring to the role of works in confirming the genuineness of faith, he carefully notes that the foundation of our salvation and the basis for certainty remains God’s free acceptance of us in Christ: The saints, when it is a question of the founding and establishing of their own salvation, without regard for works turn their eyes solely to God’s goodness […]. A conscience so founded, erected, and established is established also in the consideration of works, so far, that is, as these are testimonies of God dwelling and ruling in us. Inasmuch, therefore, as this reliance upon works has no place unless you first cast the whole confidence of your mind upon God’s mercy, it ought not to seem contrary to that upon which it depends.45

Assurance of salvation does not come from or depend upon a consideration of good works, though such good works may form “an accessory or inferior aid, a prop to our faith, not the foundation on which it rests.”46 “Although faith is confirmed by all the aids of the graces of God, it does not cease to have its foundation only in the mercy of God.”47 On the key issue of the Word and Spirit. Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 180, also makes this point, which is often overlooked in the discussion of the syllogismus practicus. 44 See Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, 198–203, who argues that Calvin emphasizes the role of works in the “confirmation” but not the “foundation” of the assurance of faith. 45 III.xiv.18 (OS 4.236–7): “Quando igitur isthaec operum fiducia locum non habet, nisi totam prius animi fiduciam in misericordiam Dei reieceris, non debet illi videri contraria unde pendet.” 46 Comm. 1 John 3:19 (CO 55.341–2): “Est igitur caritas accessio vel adminiculum inferius ad fidei fulturam: non fundamentum quo nititur.” 47 Comm. 1 John 3:14 (CO 55.339). In this passage, Calvin utilizes his familiar analogy of the sun and its heat, love being the fruit or benefit of the presence of God’s grace, just as heat is the fruit of the sun’s rays. Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 416, summarizes this point well: “So Calvin could with perfect consistency say that to suppose that looking for signs of assurance is relying upon and trusting on one’s own activity and accomplishment, involves a simple confusion between being in a state of trust and having evidence that one is in that state.”

“Practical Syllogism”

259

foundation of faith’s confidence, then, Calvin is unwavering in his insistence that it resides in grace alone.48 Any confusion at this point would again cast the assurance of God’s favor into doubt. Though Calvin is careful to base the confidence of faith upon God’s mercy in Christ, he also notes that such confidence is not the confidence of an empty and unproductive faith. Since true faith necessarily expresses itself in love and good works, faith does derive additional confirmation of God’s favor and demonstrates its genuineness through these signs of the operation of the Spirit. Because our union with Christ involves both the benefits of free justification and sanctification, the “effects” of this union may serve as a sort of secondary and subordinate confirmation of that confidence in God’s mercy already established elsewhere.49 The love for God and neighbor evident in the lives of those who are bound to Christ through his Spirit is a distinctive effect and testimony of their adoption by God the Father. Consequently, Calvin often refers to these “effects” as a “proof,” “testimony,” or “sign” of our salvation, though they are in no respect the basis for our assurance.50 Good works are ordinarily only a “cause for trembling,” since Christ alone enables us to approach fearlessly God’s tribunal. Yet, since they are an “inseparable addition” to faith, as the heat of the day is inseparably joined with the rays of the sun, they are sometimes referred to in Scripture as a kind of “cause” for confidence.51 In such instances, we are dealing with an “argument from conjunction;”52 because good works always accompany faith, they attest that we are God’s children and that our lives are ruled and governed by his Spirit.53 The reason Calvin admits this particular role of good works in attesting our salvation is that there is a necessary conjunction between good works and faith. Since justification and sanctification are inseparable benefits of our incorporation into Christ, it becomes possible to speak of a kind of “argument a posteriori,” that is, an argument in which “something is proved from the evidence which follows.”54 This argument is not one in which our 48 Comm. 1 John 2:3 (CO 55.311): “Certitudo itaque fidei in sola Christi residet.” 49 Comm. 1 John 1:7 (CO 55.304): “[…] ab effectu constare nos Deo esse unitos.” Cf. Comm. 1 John 4:17 (CO 55.357–8): “We also do not deny that newness of life, as the effect of divine adoption, serves to confirm confidence, as a secondary support, whereas we must be founded on grace alone.” 50 Comm. Matt 5:45 (CO 45.189); Comm. Matt 6:12 (CO 45.201); Comm. Luke 10:16 (CO 45.313); Comm. Luke 7:41 (CO 45.378–9); Comm. 1 Peter 1:14 (CO 55.221). 51 Comm. 1 John 3:22 (CO 55.344): “[…] nam accidens inseparabile, interdum causae loco poni solet.” 52 Comm. 1 John 4:17 (CO 55.17): “Est igitur argumentum a coniunctos.” 53 Comm. 1 John 3:24 (CO 55.345); Comm. 1 John 4:14 (CO 55.355–6). 54 III.iv.37 (OS 4.129–30). “Est autem argumentum a posteriori, quo aliquid demonstratur a signis sequentibus.”

260

Part 3

standing before God is based upon good works. For such good works “have no place in laying a foundation to strengthen the conscience but have value only when taken a posteriori […].”55 This argument is similar to that used by James when he speaks of a “justification by works.” Here good works serve to “distinguish true faith from a fictitious and dead knowledge of God”; they are “a subsequent proof as a sign”:56 But because he [God] chooses and calls us for the purpose of being pure and spotless in his sight, purity of life is rightly regarded as the illustration and evidence of election, whereby the faithful not only show to others that they are the sons of God, but also confirm themselves in this faith, but in such a way that they place their sure foundation elsewhere.57

In other words, obedience does confirm and attest our adoption, but this is only another way of affirming that true faith invariably is joined with sanctification through the office of the Spirit.58

16.4 Summary The conclusion that should be drawn from Calvin’s view of the role of good works in attesting our salvation is that he nowhere reneges on his teaching that the certainty of faith proceeds from the calling of the gospel or from faith’s persuasion sealed upon the heart by the Spirit. The role Calvin does allow to good works, namely, to confirm and prove our adoption, does not conflict with this position on the assurance of salvation. It only reflects Calvin’s consistent position that newness of life and repentance are always present whenever we are joined with Christ through faith. The only situation in which Calvin presents what might be construed as an unqualified form of the “practical syllogism” relates to the salvation of others, not ourselves.59 In this instance, Calvin suggests that, whenever we see any tokens 55 III.xiv.19 (OS 4.237): “[…] locum in iaciendo firmandae conscientiae fundamento nullum habent: sed tum demum valent si a posteriori sumuntur.” 56 Comm. 1 John 2:3 (CO 55.311): “[…] quam posterior haec probatio instar signi accedat.” 57 Comm. 2 Peter 1:10 (CO 55.449–50). Niesel, “Syllogismus practicus?,” 170, makes an appropriate comment on this passage: “Denn diese Stelle sagt nur, dass der Glaube nicht ohne Werke ist und dass man darum den Glaubigen an den Werken erkennen kann. Sie besagt aber nicht, dass die Werke von Bedeutung sind, wenn die personliche Entscheidungsfrage zu beantworten ist, ob ich des Heiles teilhaftig bin oder nicht.” 58 Comm. 1 Thess 1:6 (CO 52.143); III.xx.10 (OS 4.308). 59 Comm. Phil 1:6 (CO 52.6): “[T]he assurance which a man has of his own salvation is very different from what he has of another. For the Spirit of God is a witness to me of my calling, as he is to each of the elect. For others we have no testimony, except from the outward efficacy of the Spirit, that is, insofar as the grace of God shows itself in them, so that we become aware of it […] wherever we see any apprehensible tokens of divine election, we ought immediately to be

“Practical Syllogism”

261

or signs of God’s grace in the lives of others, we should exercise a charitable judgment and cherish the good hope that they are indeed God’s children. Far from proving any general rule about deriving the certainty of salvation from good works, however, this exception simply proves that we should ordinarily depend upon God’s Word and Spirit alone for the assurance of salvation.

stirred up to a good hope, both in order that we may not be despiteful towards our neighbors and withhold from them an equitable and humane judgment of charity, and also that we may be grateful to God.” Cf. also Comm. Phil 1:7 (CO 52.10); Comm. Phil 4:3 (CO 52.59); Comm. 1 Peter 1:1 (CO 55.207).

17. Conclusion

In my introduction to this study, I noted that a number of questions of interpretation relating to the “twofold grace of God” in Calvin’s theology have surfaced in the secondary literature. Traditional studies of Calvin’s theology have been characterized by widely different interpretations of what constitutes the key to his understanding of the Christian faith. Among the traditional approaches to Calvin’s theology, I identified three that have been especially prominent. The first approach has sought to identify a “central doctrine,” such as Calvin’s emphasis upon God’s sovereign will, as the unifying theme of all of Calvin’s theological writings. In this approach, the diverse themes of Calvin’s theology are allegedly deduced from one basic doctrinal motif. Though advocates of this approach to Calvin’s theology have not agreed on the identification of the doctrinal center of his thought, they do agree that the key to the interpretation of Calvin’s theology resides in its deduction of distinct themes from one, unifiying idea. The second approach to the interpretation of Calvin’s theology insists that the unique character of his thought resides not in some identifiable and central theme, but in its formal structure and method. What distinguishes Calvin’s theology, according to this second approach, is its “dialectical form.” Interpreters such as Bauke, for example, have argued that Calvin’s theology is distinguished by its combination of formal traits. Calvin’s theology has no central doctrinal theme, but represents a “complex of opposites” that reflect a method that is pervasively “dialectical” and “biblicistic.” The third approach that I identified, which stems from the influence of neo-orthodoxy on the interpretation of Calvin’s thought, argues that Calvin’s theology is a theology of the knowledge of God that is thoroughly Christological. The key to the interpretation of Calvin’s thought is not a particular doctrine or even its dialectical form, but the knowledge of God that is derived from his revelation in Jesus Christ. All the themes of Calvin’s theology articulate the different facets of the rich and complex knowledge of God that is based upon his revelation in Christ. In my summary of the secondary literature on Calvin’s theology, I also noted how these general approaches to Calvin’s theology have influenced the way interpreters have treated his doctrine of the “twofold grace of God.” Several of the principal questions that have been posed regarding the “twofold grace of God” are related, to a greater or lesser degree, to these distinct

Conclusion

263

approaches. Those who favor the first approach often argue that Calvin, by contrast to Luther, who gave the doctrine of justification a central place in his theology, treats justification as a subordinate theme that is deduced from the basic idea of God’s sovereign, predestinating will. Those who endorse the second approach often cite Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” as a typical example of his juxtaposition of biblical themes that are unable to be reconciled in a coherent manner. Those who follow the third approach argue that Calvin’s treatment of the “twofold grace of God” finds its basis and unity in his doctrine of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. The intersection of these traditional approaches to Calvin’s theology with his particular doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” is a characteristic feature of previous studies of Calvin. The introduction to this study also identified several recurring questions that have arisen in the secondary literature regarding the “twofold grace of God.” In some instances, these questions are closely linked to broader issues in the interpretation of Calvin’s theology. In other instances, these questions concern specific features of Calvin’s thought that are related to his understanding of the relation between justification and sanctification, the two aspects of the “twofold grace of God.” The recurring questions that I identified can be summarized as follows: 1) does Calvin depart from Luther in granting to justification a less prominent place in his theology, and does this reflect his tendency to subordinate all of the themes of theology to the central theme of God’s sovereign will?; 2) in his doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” does Calvin simply juxtapose justification and sanctification, or does he provide an account of their integral unity?; 3) is there an unresolved tension in Calvin’s theology between his emphasis upon a mystical, transformative union with Christ and his forensic or juridical conception of justification on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers?; 4) how is Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” related to the distinction between the “law” and the “gospel”?; and 5) does Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” contribute to a resolution of the problem of the “practical syllogism” in his theology? Now that we have completed our study of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” we are in a position to return to these questions in the secondary literature and to provide a summary of our findings. Since the basis for these conclusions is developed at length in the main body of our study, my summary of them will be as concise as possible. I will begin with a summary of my conclusions regarding the approach to and interpretation of Calvin’s theology. After this summary of my general conclusions regarding a proper approach to his theology, I will briefly address each of the particular questions that have recurred in previous studies of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God.”

264

Part 3

17.1 The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology In the course of our study of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” we noted that Calvin’s theology consists of a comprehensive articulation of the knowledge of God and ourselves that is based upon the Word and revelation of the Triune God. Calvin’s theology cannot be adequately interpreted using the assumptions of the older approach in Calvin studies, which sought to identify a basic doctrine from which all of the diverse aspects of his thought are deduced. Though Calvin certainly emphasizes the sovereignty of God in creation and redemption, this emphasis can hardly be regarded as a kind of unifying motif or governing principle of his theology. In Calvin’s most systematic theological work, the Institutes, there is little evidence to support this approach to his theology. By his own testimony, Calvin aims to summarize the knowledge of God and ourselves, which is the sum of all Christian wisdom, upon the basis of God’s self-revelation in creation and redemption. So far as the structure or order of his treatment of this knowledge is concerned, there appear to be two principal considerations that govern the way Calvin arranges his Institutes. On the one hand, he notes that we must distinguish between the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. Following this distinction, Calvin begins with a treatment of the knowledge of God as Creator in Book I of the Institutes, and then takes up the knowledge of God as Redeemer in Books II-IV. On the other hand, the broad arrangement of the Institutes reflects the structure of the three Articles of the Apostles Creed. The Trinitarian arrangement of the Institutes does not represent a peculiar feature of Calvin’s theology, but confirms the extent to which Calvin writes within the context of a long-standing tradition of Christian theology which, by the time of the sixteenth century, often arranged the content of theology in terms of the three Persons of the Trinity. In its most comprehensive form, therefore, Calvin’s theology treats the knowledge of God that is provided through divine revelation, whether in creation or in redemption, and that is inscripturated in the canon of the Old and New Testaments. The attempt to designate a particular doctrinal theme as the center of Calvin’s theology is not warranted by a careful study of the structure of Calvin’s Institutes or his other theological writings. Concerning the particular arrangement of topics in his Institutes, we also observed that Calvin exhibits considerable flexibility in the way he orders the content of Christian theology. In his treatment of the “twofold grace of God,” for example, Calvin openly admits that the “order of teaching” (ordo docendi) calls for a consideration of justification before sanctification. For rhetorical and persuasive reasons, however, he chooses to arrange the material differently, treating sanctification before justification. The flexibility of

Conclusion

265

Calvin’s arrangement of the material reflects a variety of factors in addition to the broad considerations of the twofold knowledge of God or the Trinitarian structure of the Institutes. Previous studies of Calvin’s theology have not always adequately noted that Calvin viewed his Institutes as a companion volume to his basic theological writings, which were his commentaries. Rather than treating extensively the diverse topics or “commonplaces” of Christian theology in his commentaries themselves, Calvin intends his Institutes to be read in conjunction with them and not as a substitute for them. For this reason, we have made extensive use throughout this study of Calvin’s commentaries and sermons. The influence of Calvin’s commentaries upon the content and order of the Institutes has been insufficiently noted in many previous studies of Calvin’s theology. When Calvin’s commentaries are taken into consideration, it becomes apparent that the location of some of the topics in his Institutes can best be explained in terms of the influence of Calvin’s exegetical labor. For instance, we noted that the order of topics in the Institutes may sometimes reflect the order of topics in the apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In this respect, Calvin’s Institutes follow the pattern set by his contemporary, Melanchthon, whose Commonplaces was explicitly ordered under the impression of the book of Romans. The inadequacy of the traditional approaches to Calvin’s theology is confirmed by our consideration of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God.” In his exposition of justification and sanctification, Calvin does not subordinate these aspects of the application of Christ’s work of redemption to a more basic, governing theological doctrine. Nor does he treat them in some characteristically dialectical manner that confirms the alleged dialectical structure of his thought. It is not even adequate to argue that the doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” can be interpreted exclusively in terms of the knowledge of God as Redeemer. According to Calvin, justification and sanctification are the two benefits of the Triune God’s work of redemption in Jesus Christ, which is applied to believers through the office of the Holy Spirit. The “twofold grace of God” represents a particular doctrinal theme within the broader framework of the knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer. In the work of redemption, the Triune God redresses the consequences of human sin by restoring fallen sinners to fellowship with himself and by renewing them after the image in which they were first created. To appreciate the integral unity of justification and sanctification in the work of redemption, it is essential to view these benefits within the context of the original creation of human beings for communion with God in faithful service and obedience. Redemption, which remedies the consequences of human sinfulness, includes not only the restoration of sinners to a state of acceptance and favor with God on the basis of Christ’s work as Redeemer (justification), but also the renewal or sanctification of sinners in

266

Part 3

conformity to Christ (sanctification). The “twofold grace of God,” accordingly, represents Calvin’s comprehensive account of the manner in which the redemptive work of Christ benefits believers who, through the work of the Spirit and by the response of faith, come to participate in him and all his benefits. A proper understanding of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” requires, therefore, the abandonment of some common assumptions of previous studies of his theology. The integral unity that exists between justification and sanctification in Calvin’s thought stems from their common basis within the redemptive purposes and activity of the Triune God. Within the scope of the Triune Creator’s redemptive work of re-establishing his claim upon and rule over sinful, disobedient human beings, justification and sanctification constitute the necessary twofold benefit of this work in the lives of the redeemed. Just as redemption through Christ the Mediator encompasses a twofold ministry of reconciliation and restored Lordship, so the application of this redemption through the work of the Spirit encompasses a new relationship between God and the sinful creature and the commencement of a process of renewed subjection to his will. Corresponding to the twofold purpose of God the Father’s work of redemption in Christ, there is a twofold benefit that derives from the Holy Spirit’s ministry to believers. The unity of justification and sanctification is rooted in the redemptive economy of the Triune God. Therefore, rather than being a subsidiary doctrine derived deductively from a single, originating principle, the “twofold grace of God” articulates the knowledge of God and ourselves that particularly concerns the redemption of sinful humanity through the ministry of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Through his gratuitous justification of sinful humanity, God reveals his free mercy and demonstrates his righteousness, not only in condemning sin, but also in proving his fidelity toward his sinful creatures. Through the humility and receptivity of faith, God’s free mercy and righteousness in Christ are embraced by believers. Likewise, through the sanctification of believers, God reveals his power and holiness by reestablishing his rule over rebellious creatures through Christ’s mediatorial kingship and the operation of his renewing Spirit. In its own way, the “twofold grace of God” reveals distinct features of the knowledge of the Triune God as Creator, who is faithful to his creation and image-bearers, and the knowledge of the Triune God as Redeemer, who is merciful and kind in condescending to his creatures’ needy condition and raising them up to newness of life. The “twofold grace of God” in Calvin’s theology provides a comprehensive perspective upon the knowledge of God and ourselves that particularly concerns the redemption of sinful humanity.

Conclusion

267

17.2 Recurring Questions Regarding the “Twofold Grace of God” in Calvin’s Theology 17.2.1 The Importance of Justification Though students of Calvin’s theology have argued that he treats the doctrine of justification as a subsidiary theme of Christian theology—unlike Luther for whom it was a central and governing theme—our study of the “twofold grace of God” does not support this claim. In his exposition of the “twofold grace of God,” Calvin insists that justification is legitimately described as the “main hinge of the Christian religion.” Since justification concerns the great question of where sinful creatures stand before the tribunal of God, it can hardly be diminished in importance. Before sinners can have fellowship with the Triune Creator, they must know where they stand with God. Upon what basis may fallen creatures be confident of God’s favor and acceptance? According to Calvin, this is the question to which justification provides an answer. Only those who through faith are united to Christ and receive his righteousness can know with certainty that their sins are forgiven and that they are regarded by God as righteous and acceptable to him. The redemptive work of Christ includes a number of diverse elements, but at the heart of the redemptive office of Christ as Mediator is his obedience to the law and substitutionary endurance of its penalty. Believers who are joined to Christ by the work of his Spirit enjoy free justification upon the basis of their participation in this work of Christ on their behalf. For Calvin, no less than for Luther, the gospel begins with the gracious declaration of acceptance with God. Salvation, so far as it grants free acceptance with God, depends upon God’s sheer grace in Christ, which is received by the empty hand of faith alone. On the issue of the importance and centrality of free justification to a proper understanding of the Christian gospel of salvation through the work of Christ, Calvin does not substantially differ from Luther. It is legitimate, therefore, to speak of Calvin’s doctrine of justification, as much as that of Luther, as representative of the Protestant understanding of the sixteenth century. However, this does not mean that Calvin reduces the gospel to the benefit of free justification. The reason Calvin commonly speaks of a “twofold grace of God” is that salvation includes not only the believer’s free acceptance with God but also the believer’s renewal in sanctification. Justification does not exhaust the saving benefits of Christ’s work as Mediator. In Calvin’s view of the “twofold grace of God,” salvation begins with the restoration of sinful creatures to favor with God, but it is teleologically ordered to the restoration of sinful creatures after the image of God. Justifi-

268

Part 3

cation is unto sanctification, just as sanctification is possible only within the context of renewed favor with God. The burden of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” is to hold these benefits together as distinct yet inseparable consequences of the believer’s union with Christ through the office of the Spirit, whom Calvin terms the “minister of Christ’s liberality.” Justification and sanctification comprise the fullness of salvation in Christ. Though Calvin shares Luther’s emphasis upon the principal importance of justification, he does not countenance a “reductionist” view of salvation that would diminish the necessity or importance of sanctification.

17.2.2 The Integral Unity of Justification and Sanctification Among interpreters of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God,” remarkably different evaluations of Calvin’s treatment of the distinction between justification and sanctification are clearly evident. While some interpreters cite the relation between justification and sanctification as an instance of Calvin’s tendency to juxtapose biblical themes without demonstrating their unity, others argue that Calvin fails to distinguish adequately between these two aspects of the “twofold grace of God.” In the course of this study, I have noted that Calvin does carefully and consistently distinguish between justification and sanctification. Justification, which is the “first” benefit of God’s grace in Christ, is that aspect of salvation that declares believers to be in a right relationship with God. Calvin identifies justification with the act of God’s grace wherein he forgives the sins of believers and imputes to them the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. Sanctification, which is the “second” benefit of God’s grace in Christ, is that aspect of salvation that describes the renewal of believers through the work of the Holy Spirit. The free acceptance of sinners for the sake of the work of Christ is distinct from the gracious renewal of sinners after the image of God. The “twofold grace of God” clearly distinguishes between Christ’s priestly office as the Mediator of reconciliation between God and human beings and his kingly office in which he subdues believers to new obedience to God’s commandments. For Calvin, any failure to maintain the distinction between justification and sanctification leads to a doctrine of salvation partly on the basis of human works, and not solely on the basis of the righteousness of Christ that is received through faith alone. Furthermore, if justification is not kept distinct from sanctification, the believer’s confidence in God’s mercy will be imperiled. To the extent that human acceptance with God comes to rest upon some other basis than the righteousness of Jesus Christ, the believer’s assurance of God’s favor will begin to waver. Whenever justification is confused with sanctification, the

Conclusion

269

obedience of believers becomes a means of self-justification. But since the requirements of God’s law are strict and unyielding, even the best works of a believer are not able to withstand God’s scrutiny or constitute a sure basis for being confident of God’s favor. As Calvin notes in his treatment of justification in the Institutes, the necessary distinction between justification and sanctification preserves God’s honor in salvation and the believer’s confidence of God’s grace. Despite this clear and consistent emphasis upon the distinction between justification and sanctification, Calvin also insists upon the integral unity of these two facets of God’s grace in Christ. The unity of justification and sanctification stems from the unity of God’s intention in creation and redemption. Since redemption restores believers to full communion with God as Creator and Redeemer, it requires both the restoration of fallen sinners to a state of acceptance with God and the renewal of fallen sinners after the image in which they were first created. To be truly restored to fellowship with God, it is not enough that believers be placed in a new status of favor with him. They must also be consecrated once more to a condition of loving obedience and devotion to his will. For this reason, the redemptive office of Christ, which constitutes the basis for every benefit of salvation, includes not only a priestly work of making satisfaction for sin, but a kingly work of subduing believers to new obedience. When believers are united to Christ by the office of the Holy Spirit, they are simultaneously justified and sanctified. Justification and sanctification are integrally joined in the communication of God’s grace to believers by the work of the Holy Spirit. As Calvin frequently notes, it is no more possible to separate sanctification from justification than it is possible to separate the two natures of Christ, or to separate Christ from his life-giving Spirit. Justification and sanctification are not only distinguishable features of the application of redemption, but they are also coordinate benefits of the Triune God’s manifold grace toward sinners in Jesus Christ. The claim that Calvin simply juxtaposes justification and sanctification, therefore, represents a profoundly mistaken interpretation of Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God.” Indeed, it is not incidental to Calvin’s view that he chooses to use the language of a “twofold grace” and not the language of “two graces,” when he describes the double benefit of redemption in Christ.

17.2.3 The Distinction Between Forensic Justification and Transformative Sanctification One form of the claim that Calvin fails to show the unity that obtains between justification and sanctification is the allegation that there is an unre-

270

Part 3

solved tension in Calvin’s theology between his “juridical” doctrine of justification, which is based upon an imputed righteousness, and his doctrine of a “mystical” union with Christ. Interpreters of Calvin who detect this unresolved tension in his understanding of the “twofold grace of God” often argue that Calvin’s emphasis upon the “transformative” nature of the believer’s union with Christ by the Spirit mitigates the need for his “forensic” doctrine of justification. If believers are invariably transformed and renewed through union with Christ, what need remains for insisting upon free justification on the basis of an “external” or “extrinsic” righteousness? In our consideration of this question regarding Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God,” we found that Calvin does insist upon a necessary distinction between the juridical and transformative aspects of the believer’s salvation through union with Christ. This is simply another way of expressing the necessary difference between the two gospel benefits of justification and sanctification that is expressed by Calvin’s language of the “twofold grace of God.” The reason Calvin insists upon this distinction is clear enough, however, and does not warrant the charge of an unresolved tension in his theology. Since justification refers to a definitive act of acceptance in which believers are declared righteous and acceptable to God, it must be based upon a righteousness that fully meets the demands of God’s justice and law. According to Calvin, the only proper basis for free justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, whose obedience to the law and substitionary death perfectly satisfy God’s justice. If the free justification of believers were to be confused with the transformation of believers by the Spirit of Christ, the sufficiency of Christ’s work of atonement would be compromised. Free justification would no longer be a gracious gift, which is granted to believers solely for the sake of Christ’s atoning work on their behalf. The righteousness that is the basis for free justification is an “alien” righteousness simply because it is, in the strictest sense, the righteousness of Another, Jesus Christ, the Mediator. Moreover, Calvin’s insistence upon the distinction between forensic justification and transformative sanctification is also demanded by the nature of sanctification itself. Since the renewal of the believer by the working of the Spirit never reaches its goal—sinless perfection—in this life, it could never constitute an adequate basis for the believer’s acceptance with God. No definitive declaration of the believer’s standing with God could ever be based upon the partial righteousness that is produced in believers by the Spirit of sanctification. For Calvin, this is the reason that the distinction between the forensic and transformative benefits of Christ’s saving work must remain insuperable. Indeed, perhaps the most important reason Calvin chooses to treat sanctification before justification in his Institutes is to show why the good works of believers could never constitute a basis for the kind

Conclusion

271

of acceptance with God that justification represents. In the nature of the case, justification must be based upon an imputed, perfect righteousness and not an inherent, imperfect righteousness.

17.2.4 The Unity and Distinction of Law and Gospel In the course of our study, we also had occasion to consider Calvin’s understanding of the law and gospel in relation to his doctrine of the “twofold grace of God.” Like Calvin’s view of the relation between justification and sanctification, or his view of the distinction between the forensic and transformative aspects of salvation, his understanding of the unity and distinction between the law and the gospel has been cited as an example of an unresolved tension in his theology. Interpreters have offered widely divergent opinions regarding Calvin’s position on the law and gospel. On the one hand, some interpreters allege that Calvin fails to offer a satisfactory account of the unity between the law and the gospel. And on the other hand, some—primarily Lutheran—interpreters maintain that Calvin fails to preserve the necessary distinction between law and gospel. Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” is particularly important for a resolution of the alleged problem of the relation between the law and the gospel in his theology. The distinction between justification and sanctification is mirrored in Calvin’s insistence that there is a “repugnance” between the law and the gospel so far as the believer’s justification is concerned. The holy and righteous requirements of the law of God can only condemn human beings. Since sinful human beings are unable to obey the law perfectly and obtain favor with God on the basis of the “works of the law,” there is an insuperable antithesis between justification by our works and justification on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work. Only the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who fully obeyed the law and suffered its curse upon the cross, can satisfy the demands of God’s holy law. For believers to be justified, therefore, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ as Mediator must be granted and imputed to them. The free gift of Christ’s righteousness, which is the sole basis for the justification of believers, is received by the empty hand of faith. The repugnance of the law and the gospel in respect to justification is a necessary implication of the gospel of salvation and favor with God on the basis of Christ’s office as Mediator. Calvin’s insistence upon the distinction between the law and the gospel aims to preserve the sheer graciousness of the free gift of justification. However, the “repugnance” between the law and the gospel in free justification does not exhaust Calvin’s understanding of the law. Calvin’s doctrine of the law of God also includes a positive affirmation of its fundamen-

272

Part 3

tal goodness and abiding validity. According to Calvin, the law of God reveals God’s righteous and holy will as the Creator. Through the law of God, all human beings are summoned to live as image bearers of God in true righteousness and holiness. Though human sinfulness is an “accidental” feature of human life that was introduced through the Fall into sin, the law of God expresses the stable and invariable obligation to which all those who bear God’s image are subject. Accordingly, when God as Redeemer restores sinful human beings to communion with himself, he does so, not at the expense of his holy law, but in a manner that upholds the goodness and righteousness of the law. As we have seen throughout our study, Calvin consistently views redemption within the framework of creation. When the Triune God redeems his people through the mediatorial work of Christ, he does so in a way that upholds his lawful claim upon and intention for those who bear his image. For Calvin, it is inconceivable that the work of redemption would overturn the order of creation. On the contrary, the work of redemption restores sinful human beings to the fullness of life in communion with God. The Triune God’s work of redemption honors his work of creation, including the goodness of the law as an expression of his holy will. The fundamental unity between the law and the gospel in Calvin’s theology is illustrated by the way he understands the role of the law in justification and sanctification. Even though believers are justified apart from the works of the law, their justification rests wholly upon Christ’s office of Mediator, which includes his obedience to the law’s demands and suffering of the law’s liability on behalf of his people. Though the justification of believers is a free gift of God’s grace, it was obtained upon the basis of Christ’s voluntary submission to the law and fulfillment of all its obligations on behalf of his people. The antithesis between the law and gospel in free justification, accordingly, is not absolute. The righteousness of God that is revealed in the gospel fully accords with and honors the holy requirements of God’s law. Furthermore, Calvin’s understanding of the “twofold grace of God” emphasizes that the free justification of believers is always accompanied by the simultaneous renewal of believers through the work of the Holy Spirit. As we observed in our consideration of Calvin’s view of the law and the gospel, one of the distinctive features of Calvin’s theology is his emphasis upon the positive use of the law of God as a “rule of gratitude.” Calvin even speaks of the positive role of the law in the sanctification of believers as the “principal use” of the law. Since justification restores believers to a right relationship with God, it necessarily summons them to live within this new relationship in a manner that honors the law of God. God accepts believers in Christ, not in order to leave them in their sinful condition, but in order to renew them after his image in true knowl-

Conclusion

273

edge, righteousness, and holiness. A life of good works, normed by the holy demands of the law of God, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of free justification. A careful analysis of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” clarifies his understanding of the distinction between, as well as the basic unity of, the law and the gospel.

17.2.5 The Assurance of Salvation (Syllogismus Practicus) In the course of our study, we have noted on a number of occasions that Calvin distinguishes between justification and sanctification in order to secure a sure basis for the believer’s confidence before God. The assurance of salvation would be imperiled if justification and sanctification are confused. Since the sanctification of believers never produces perfect conformity to the law of God in this life, it could never serve as a solid basis for confidence in God’s favor in Christ. Only the free justification of believers, which depends upon the righteousness of Jesus Christ, can produce the kind of certainty of God’s favor that grants believers peace with God. According to Calvin, such assurance of God’s favor is one of the great fruits of a proper understanding of free justification. If believers were to base their confidence before God upon their own sanctification or good works, they would soon waver and begin to doubt God’s mercy and grace. By means of his distinction between justification and sanctification, Calvin aims to guard against a view that would found the assurance of salvation upon the good works of believers. In this respect, we have found that Calvin rejects an unqualified use of the “practical syllogism.” Because justification is by grace alone on account of the redeeming work of Christ, it affords believers an assurance of salvation that surpasses the “moral conjecture” acknowledged by Roman Catholic teaching. Calvin’s emphasis upon the inseparable connection between justification and sanctification, however, enables him to grant a subordinate role to good works in the assurance of salvation. Because justification and sanctification are coordinate benefits of union with Christ, the faith that justifies is also a faith that works through love. Justification is by faith alone, but the faith that alone justifies is not an alone faith. Good works are the fruits and evidences of genuine faith that are produced in believers by the office of the Spirit of Christ. Consequently, Calvin acknowledges that good works can play an “ancillary” or “auxiliary” role in respect to the assurance of salvation. Because the good works of believers confirm the genuineness of their faith, they are a kind secondary confirmation of salvation. Such works do not, strictly speaking, constitute the basis for the assurance of salvation. They do not stand alone as a basis for assurance, but serve only as a kind of

274

Part 3

“prop” or “help” that serves to authenticate the genuineness of faith. Nevertheless, such good works are an a posteriori confirmation of the assurance of salvation that is born of the believer’s confident embrace of the gospel promise in Christ. Since faith is known by its fruits, the presence of such fruits in the lives of believers is an evident token of salvation and the presence of Christ’s life-giving Spirit. In respect to this and the other questions we have addressed in our summary, the implications of Calvin’s doctrine of the “twofold grace of God” are evident. Rather than treating the benefits of justification and sanctification as two discrete or antithetical aspects of salvation through union with Christ, Calvin consistently treats them as intimately joined in the purposes of God as Creator and Redeemer. While there are good reasons to distinguish between justification and sanctification, there are equally good reasons to resist any tendency to sever the inseparable bond between them. The gospel promise of God’s grace in Christ always includes the two benefits of a new status of acceptance with God and a new life of obedience to his commandments. All believers who are united to Christ by faith and indwelt by his Spirit enjoy not only the assurance of favor with God on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, but also the beginnings of new obedience by which the image of God is restored.

Abbreviations

Cath CTJ CC CH CO Con CTM ExAud EQ HTR IJST JLR JRel OS RE RR RSR SBET SCJ SC SJT Spec TEH Them TT TZ UTQ VC WTJ ZKG

Catholica Calvin Theological Journal Les Cahiers Calvinistes Church History Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia Concilium Concordia Theological Monthly Ex Auditu Evangelical Quarterly Harvard Theological Review International Journal of Systematic Theology Journal of Law and Religion Journal of Religion Calvini opera selecta Review and Expositor Reformed Review Religious Studies Review Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology Sixteenth Century Journal Supplementa Calviniana, Sermons inédits Scottish Journal of Theology Speculum Theologische Existenz Heute Themelios Theology Today Theologische Zeitschrift University of Toronto Quarterly Verbum Caro Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

Selected Bibliography

I. Sources Calvini opera selecta. Edited by P. Barth and G. Niesel. 5 vol. München: Kaiser, 1926–52. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz, E. Reuss et al. 59 vol. Vol. 29–87, Corpus Reformatorum. Brunsvigae, Schwetschke, 1863–1900. Institution de la religion chrestienne. Edited by J.D. Benoit. 5 vol. Paris: J. Vrin, 1957–63. Supplementa Calviniana, Sermons inédits. Edited by Erwin Mülhaupt et al. 11 vol. to date. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1936–.

II. Works in Translation Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice. Translated by Mary Beaty and Benjamin Farley. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. Calvin’s First Catechism. A Commentary. Featuring Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of the 1538 Catechism. Edited by John I. Hesselink. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Edited by D.W. Torrance and T.F. Torrance. 12 vol. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1959–72. Calvin: Theological Treatises. Translated with introductions and notes by J.K.S. Reid. Vol. 22, The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954. Concerning Scandals. Translated by John W. Fraser. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. The Commentaries of John Calvin. Various translators. 46 vol. Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1843–55. A Compend of the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by Hugh T. Kerr. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by J.T. McNeill. Translated by F.L. Battles. 2 vol. Vol. 20 & 21, The Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Institution of the Christian Religion, 1536. Translated and edited F.L. Battles. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975. John Calvin's Sermons on the Ten Commandments. Translated and edited by B.W. Farley. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Kingdon, Robert M., gen. ed. Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the Time of Calvin. Volume 1, 1542–1544. Translated by M. Wallace MacDonald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ. Translated and edited by T.H.L. Parker. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1956. Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Translated by A. Golding, revised by L. Rawlinson and S.M. Houghton. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1973. Sermons on the Saving Work of Christ. Selected and translated by L. Nixon. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950. Tracts and Treatises in Defence of the Reformed Faith. Translated by H. Beveridge for the Calvin Translation Society, in 1844, reissued with introduction by T.F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.

278

Selected Bibliography

III. Secondary Literature Armstrong, Brian. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. _____. “Duplex cognitio Dei, Or: The Problem of Structure, Form, and Purpose in Calvin’s Theology.” In Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., edited by Elsie McKee and Brian Armstrong. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 135–51. _____, ed. Calvin and the Reformation. Four Studies by Emile Doumergue, August Lang, Herman Bavinck, and Benjamin B. Warfield. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980. Balavoine, Hippolyte. La définition de la justification par la foi selon Calvin, exposée dans sa nature, ses sources et ses consequences. Thése. Strasbourg, 1864. Bandstra, Andrew J. “Law and Gospel in Calvin and Paul.” In Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin, edited by David E. Holwerda (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 11–39. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Vol. 4/1 and 4/2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956 and 1958. _____. Community, State, And Church. Edited with introduction by W. Herberg. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1960. _____. “Gospel and Law.” In Community, State, and Church, edited by Will Herberg (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1960), 71–100. _____. The Theology of John Calvin. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Barth, Markus. Justification. Translated by A.M. Woodruff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Barth, Peter. “Das Problem der natürlichen Theologie bei Calvin.” Theologische Existenz Heute 18 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1935). Battles, Ford Lewis. Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. _____. “Calculus Fidei.” In Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor, edited by W.H. Neuser (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1980), 85–110. _____. Interpreting John Calvin. Edited by Robert Benedetto. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Bauke, Hermann. Die Probleme Der Theologie Calvins. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'scher Buchhandlung, 1922. Bavaud, Georges. “La doctrine de la justification d'après Calvin et le concile de Trente, Une conciliation est-elle possible?” Verbum Caro 22 (1968): 83–92. Beeke, Joel R. “Making Sense of Calvin’s Paradoxes on Assurance of Faith.” In Calvin Studies Society Papers, 1995, 1997, edited by David Foxgrover (Calvin Studies Society, 1998), 13–30. Berkouwer, Gerrit Cornelis. Geloof En Heiligung. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1949. _____. Geloof En Rechtvaardiging. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1949. Bohatec, Josef. Budé und Calvin. Studien zur Gedankenwelt des französischen Frühumanismus. Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1950. _____. Calvin und das Recht. Feudigen in Westfalen: Buchdruckerei G.m.b.H., 1934. Bois, Henri. La Philosophie de Calvin. Paris: Librairie générale et protestante, 1919. Boisset, Jean. Sagesse Et Sainteté Dans La Pensée De Jean Calvin. Vol. 71, Bibliothéque De L'Ecole Des Hautes Etudes. Paris: Presses Universitaires De France, 1959. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1959. _____. Ethics. Edited by E. Bethge. Translated by N.H. Smith. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1955. Bouwsma, William J. “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing.” Calvin Theological Journal 17 (1982): 190–211. _____. John Calvin. A Sixteenth Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Select Bibliography

279

_____. “Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica.” In Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica, edited by Wilhelm Wueller (Berkeley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1986), 1–21. Bouyer, Louis. The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. Translated by A.V. Littledale. Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Co., 1954. Bratt, John H., ed. The Heritage of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973. Breen, Quirinus. Christianity and Humanism: Studies in the History of Ideas. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968. _____. John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931. Bruggink, Donald Jay. “Calvin and Federal Theology.” The Reformed Review 13 (September 1959): 15–22. Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics. Vol. 3, The Christian Doctrine of the Church, Faith, and the Consummation. Translated by D. Cairns. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. _____. The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith. Translated by O. Wyon. London: Lutterworth Press, 1934. _____, and Karl Barth. Natural Theology. Translated by Peter Fraenkel. London, 1946. Brunner, Peter. Vom Glauben bei Calvin. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1925. Cadier, Jean. “La Justification Par la Foi.” Les Cahiers Calvinistes 1 (1960): 3–12. Canlis, Julie. “Calvin, Osiander and Participation in God.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6/2 (2004): 169–84. Casteel, Theodore W. “Calvin and Trent: Calvin's Reaction to the Council of Trent in the Context of His Conciliar Thought.” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 91–117. Carpenter, Craig B. “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification.” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002): 363–86. Coates, Thomas. “Calvin's Doctrine of Justification.” Concordia Theological Monthly 34 (1953): 325–334. Cochrane, Arthur C. The Church's Confession Under Hitler. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962. _____. “Natural Law in Calvin.” In Church-State Relations in Ecumenical Perspective, edited by E.A. Smith (Pittsburgh: Duquense University Press, 1966), 176–217. _____. “A Preliminary Aspect of Calvin’s Epistemology.” University of Toronto Quarterly 13 (1944): 382–93. Colson, Charles, and Richard John Neuhaus, ed. Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996. Cremer, Hermann. Die Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 21900. Dantine, Wilhelm. Justification of the Ungodly. Translated by E.W. Gritsch and R.C. Gritsch. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968. Dee, Simon Pieter. Het Geloofsbegrip Van Calvijn. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Te Amsterdam. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1918. De Greef, W. The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Lyle D. Bierma. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. De Koster, Lester. Light for the City: Calvin’s Preaching, Source of Life and Liberty. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. De Kroon, Marijn. The Honour of God and Human Salvation: Calvin’s Theology According to His Institutes. Translated by John Vriend and Lyle D. Bierma. New York: T. & T. Clark, 22001. Denzinger, Henricus. Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum Et Declarationum De Rebus Fide Et Morum. Editio 21–23. Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder & Co., 1937. Dillistone, F.W., et al., ed. The Doctrine of Justification by Faith. London: A.R. Mowbray & Co., Ltd., 1954. Douglass, Jane Dempsey. Women, Freedom, and Calvin. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985.

280

Selected Bibliography

Doumerge, Emile. Jean Calvin, Les hommes et les choses de son temps. Vol. 4, La pensee religieuse de Calvin. Lausanne: Georges Bridel et Cie, 1910. Dowey, Edward, Jr. The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 31994 (1952). Dowey, Edward A., Jr. “The Structure of Calvin’s Theological Thought as Influenced by the Twofold Knowledge of God.” In Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos, edited by W.H. Neuser (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984), 135–48. Duffield, G.E., ed. John Calvin. Vol. 1, Courtenay Studies In Reformation Theology. Appleford, Abingdon, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966. Ebeling, Gerhard. “Cognitio Dei et hominis.” In Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, Festgabe Hanns Rückert (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1966), 271–322. _____. The Nature of Faith. Translated by R.G. Smith. London: Wm. Collins Sons & Col., Ltd., 1961. _____. “Reflexions on the Doctrine of the Law.” In Word and Faith, translated by J.W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 248–81. Edmondson, Stephen. Calvin’s Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Elert, Werner. “A Critique of Calvin.” In Law and Gospel, Facet Books, Social Ethics Series, vol. 16 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 44–8. _____. Law and Gospel. Translated by E.H. Schroeder. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967. Emerson, Everett H. “Calvin and Covenant Theology.” Church History 25 (1956): 136–44. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.” First Things 43 (May, 1994): 15–22. Evans, William Borden. “Imputation and Impartation: The Problem of Union with Christ in Nineteenth Century American Reformed Theology.” Ph.D. dissertation. Vanderbilt University, 1996. Faber, Eva-Maria. “Immer schon überholt? Zur Frage der Prädestination in der Theologie Johannes Calvins.” Theologische Zeitschrift 56/1 (2000): 50–68. _____. “Johannes Calvin: Theologe und Prediger des Lebens aus Heilsgewissheit.” In Theologen des 16. Jahrhunderts: Humanismus-Reformation-Katholische Erneuerung, edited by Martin H. Jung and Peter Walter (Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002), 227– 43. _____. Symphonie von Gott und Mensch: Die Responsorische Struktur von Vermittlung in der Theologie Johannes Calvins. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. Forde, Gerhard O. Justification by Faith—A Matter of Death and Life. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Gamble, Richard C. “Current Trends in Calvin Research, 1982–90.” In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 91–112. Gamble, Richard, ed. The Organizational Structure of Calvin’s Theology. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992. Ganoczy, Alexandre. “Calvin in Present-day Catholic Thought.” Concilium 14 (1966): 34–41. _____. Calvin, Théologien De L’Église Et Du Ministére. Vol. 48, Unam Sanctum. Paris: Les Editions Du Cerf, 1964. _____. Le Jeune Calvin: Genése Et Évolution de sa Vocation Réformatrice. Vol. 40, Abteilung Abendländische Religions-geschichte. Edited by Joseph Lortz. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1966. Garcia, Mark A. “Imputation and the Christology of Union with Christ: Calvin, Osiander, and the Contemporary Quest for a Reformed Model.” Westminster Theological Journal 68 (2006): 219–51. _____. “Life in Christ: The Function of Union with Christ in the Unio — Duplex Gratia Structure of Calvin’s Soteriology with Special Reference to the Relationship of Justification and Sanctification in Sixteenth-Century Context.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Edinburgh, 2004.

Select Bibliography

281

George, Timothy. “‘A Right Strawy Epistle’: Reformation Perspectives on James.” Review & Expositor 83 (1986): 369–82. _____, ed. John Calvin & the Church. A Prism of Reform. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990. Gerrish, Brian A. Grace and Gratitude. The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Gloede, Gunter. Theologia naturalis bei Calvin. Stuttgart: Kohlhamer, 1935. Göhler, Alfred. Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung. Vol. 3, Forschungen zur Geschichte und lehre des Protestantismus. Seventh Series. Edited by P. Althaus et al. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1934. Goumaz, Louis. La Doctrine du salut 'doctrina salutis' d'apres les commentaires de Jean Calvin sur le Nouveau Testament. Lausanne: Librairie Payot, 1917. Graham, W. Fred. The Constructive Revolutionary, John Calvin and His Socio-Economic Impact. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1971. _____, ed. Later Calvinism. International Perspectives. Vol. 22, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994. Green, Robert W., ed. Protestantism, Capitalism, and Social Science: The Weber Thesis Controversy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 21975. Halaski, Karl, ed. Der Prediger Johannes Calvin. Beiträge und Nachrichten zur Ausgabe der Supplementa Calviniana. Neukirchen Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1966. Hall, Basil. “Calvin Against the Calvinists.” In John Calvin, edited by G.E. Duffield (Appleford, Abingdon, Berkshire: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966), 19–37. Hamann, Henry P. Justification by Faith in Modern Theology. Saint Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1957. Harkness, Georgia. John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics. New York: Henry Holt, 1931. Hauck, Wilhelm-Albert. Calvin und die Rechtfertigung. Herzpunkte evangelischer Lehre nach Calvins reformatorischem Vertändnis. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1938. _____. Christusglaube und Gottesoffenbarung nach Calvin. Gütersloh, 1939. _____. Vorsehung und Freiheit nach Calvin. Gütersloh, 1947. Helm, Paul. “Calvin and Natural Law.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984): 5–22. _____. Calvin and the Calvinists. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982. _____. “Calvin and the Covenant: Unity and Continuity.” The Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983): 65–81. _____. “Calvin, English Calvinism and the Logic of Doctrinal Development.” Scottish Journal of Theology 34 (1981): 179–85. _____. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Hendry, George S. The Gospel of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958. Hesselink, I. John. “Calvin's Concept and Use of the Law.” Inaugural dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der theologischen Fakultät Basel, 1961. _____. Calvin’s Concept of the Law. Vol. 30, Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Allison Park: Pickwick Publications, 1992. _____. “Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law? Calvin’s Understanding of the Relationship.” In Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin, edited by Robert V. Schnucker (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988), 13–32. _____. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Calvin’s Theology.” In Calvin Studies, vol. 5, edited by John H. Leith (Davidson, NC, Jan. 19–20, 1990), 29–40. Hirsch, E. Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Tübingen, 1919. Hoekema, Anthony. “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching.” Calvin Theological Journal 2 (1967): 133–61. Hoitenga, Dewey J., Jr. John Calvin and the Will: A Critique and Corrective. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

282

Selected Bibliography

Holder, R. Ward. “Ecclesia, Legenda atque Intelligenda Scriptura: The Church as Discerning Community in Calvin’s Hermeneutic.” Calvin Theological Journal 36/2 (2001): 270–89. Hunter, A. Mitchell. The Teaching of Calvin: A Modern Interpretation. London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1950. Jacobs, Paul. Prädestination und Verantwortlichkeit bei Calvin. Kasel: Oncken, 1937. James, Frank A. III. “Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Reformed Doctrine of Justification.” Princeton Theological Review 6/4 (1999): 15–20. Jansen, John F. Calvin's Doctrine of the Work of Christ. London: James Clarke & Co., LTD., 1956. Jedin, Hubert. A History of the Council of Trent. Vol. 2, The First Sessions at Trent, 1545–47. Translated by Dom E. Graf. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1961. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Lutheran World Federation and The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Jones, Serene. Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1995. Jüngel, Eberhard. Zur Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, Eine Erinnerung An Luthers Schrift. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1978. “Justification.” In The New Catholic Encyclopedia, prepared by an editorial staff at the Catholic University of America, vol. 8 (1967), 77–93. Käsemann, Ernst. Jesus Means Freedom. Translated by F. Clarke. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. Kendall, R.T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. New edition. Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs. Great Britain: Paternoster Press, 1997 (1979). Kirk, Kenneth E. The Vision of God: The Christian Doctrine of the Summum Bonum. New York: Longmans, Green And Co., 1931. Klempa, William. “John Calvin on Natural Law.” In Calvin Studies, vol. 4, edited by John H. Leith and W. Stacy Johnson (Davidson, NC, 1988), 1–24. Klingenburg, Georg. Das Verhältnis Calvins zu Butzer untersucht auf Grund der wirtschaftsethischen Bedeutung beider Refomatoren. Bonn: Carl George, Universitäts-Buchdruckerei und Verlag, 1912. Kolfhaus, Wilhelm. Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1939. _____. Die Seelsorge Johannes Calvins. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1941. _____. Vom Christlichen Leben Nach Johannes Calvin. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1949. Köstlin, J. “Calvins Institutio nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer Geschichtlichen Entwicklung.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1868): 6–62, 410–86. Kreck, Walter. “Die Eigenart der Theologie Calvins.” In Calvin-Studien 1959, edited by J. Moltmann (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960), 26–42. Krusche, Werner. Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin. Vol. 7, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Kuizenga, Henry. “The Relation of God's Grace to His Glory in John Calvin.” In Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton, edited by Franklin H. Littell (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962), 95–105. Küng, Hans. “Justification and Sanctification According to the New Testament.” In Christianity Divided, edited by Daniel J. Callahan (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 309–335. Lane, Anthony N.S. “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities: Justification at Regensburg (1541) and Trent (1546–1547). In Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 119–45. _____. “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy.” In Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, edited by H. Selderhuis (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 231–61. _____. John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. _____. Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002.

Select Bibliography

283

_____. “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification?” In Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, edited by Mark Husbands and Mark J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2004), 205–24. Lang, D.A. Zwei Calvin-Vorträge: Rechtfertigung und Heiligung nach Calvin; Calvin und der moderne Gemeindegedanke. Vol. 15/6, Beiträge zur Forderung christlicher Theologie. Edited by A. Schlatter and W. Lütgert. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1911. La Vallee, Armand Aime. “Calvin's Criticism of Scholastic Theology.” Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1967. Leith, John H. John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989. Lehmann, K. and Wolfhart Pannenberg, ed. The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Lehmann, Paul. “The Reformer's Use of the Bible.” Theology Today 3 (1946): 328–344. Leith, John H. “Calvin's Theological Method and the Ambiguity in his Theology.” In Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton, edited by F.H. Littel (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962), 106–14. _____. “Creation and Redemption: Law and Gospel in the Theology of John Calvin.” In Marburg Revisited: A Reexamination of Lutheran and Reformed Traditions, edited by Paul C. Empie and James I. McCord (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966), 141–52. _____. “John Calvin—Theologian of the Bible.” Interpretation 25 (1971): 329–44. Lelièvre, Ch. “La doctrine de la justification par la foi dans la doctrine de Calvin.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie (1909): 699–701, 767–76. Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. _____. “The Continuing Conundrum: Calvin and the Conditionality of the Covenant.” Calvin Theological Journal 29/1 (1994): 42–74. Link, Christian. “Calvins Erwählungslehre zwischen Providenz und Christologie.” In Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation, edited by Peter Opitz (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 169–93. Littel, F.H., ed. Reformation Studies: Essays in Honor of Roland H. Bainton. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1962. Lobstein, P. “La Connaissance religieuse d'après Calvin.” Revue de thélogie et de philosophie 42 (1909): 53–110. Lüttge, Willy. Die Rechtfertigungslehre Calvins und ihre Bedeutung für seine Frömmigkeit. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1909. Marcel, Pierre. “The Relation Between Justification and Sanctification in Calvin's Thought.” Evangelical Quarterly 27 (1955): 132–45. Marcuse, Herbert. “Luther and Calvin.” In Studies in Critical Philosophy: a Study on Authority (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), 56–78. Maury, Pierre. “La Théologie naturelle chez Calvin.” Bulletin de la Société de 1'Histoire du Protestantism Francais 84 (1935): 267–79. McBrien, Richard P. “The Reformation: A Catholic Reflection.” Theology Today 38 (1981): 298– 304. McCormack, Bruce L., ed. Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. McGrath, Alistair E. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990. _____. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. New York: Cambridge University Press, 21998 (1986). McKee, Elsie Anne. “Exegesis, Theology, and Development in Calvin’s Institutio: A Methodological Suggestion.” In Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., edited by Elsie McKee and Brian Armstrong (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 154–72.

284

Selected Bibliography

_____, and Brian G. Armstrong, ed. Probing the Reformed Tradition. Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989. McKeon, Richard. “Rhetoric in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 17 (1942): 1–32. McKim, Donald K. The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. London: Oxford University Press, 1954. _____. “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers.” Journal of Religion 26 (1946): 168–82. _____. “The Significance of the Word of God for Calvin.” Church History 27 (1959): 131–46. Millet, Olivier. Calvin et la Dynamique de la Parole: Étude de rhétorique réformée. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, 1992. _____. “Docere/Movere: Les categories rhétoriques et leurs sources humanists dans la doctrine calvinienne de la foi.” In Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong. Vol. 36, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc., 1997), 35–51. Milner, Benjamin Charles. Calvin's Doctrine of the Church. Vol. 5, Studies in the History of Christian Thought. Edited by H.A. Oberman. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970. Moeller, Ch. “Théologie de la Grâce et Oecuménisme.” Irénikon 28 (1955): 19–56. Moltmann, Jürgen. “The ethic of Calvinism.” In The Experiment Hope (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 119–30. _____. “Justification and New Creation.” In The Future of Creation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 149–71. Mülhaupt, Erwin. Die Predigt Calvins, Ihre Geschichte, lhre Form und Ihre Religiösen Grundgedanken. Vol. 18, Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte. Edited by E. Hirsch and H. Lietzmann. Berlin und Leipzig: Verlag Von Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1931. Müller, Gerhard. Die Rechtfertigungslehre: Geschichte und Probleme. Studienbücher Theologie: Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte. Edited by G. Müller and G. Ruhbach. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1977. Muller, Richard A. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. _____. After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. _____. “Directions in Current Calvin Research.” Religious Studies Review 27/2 (2001): 131–8. _____. “The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or Non-issue?” Calvin Theological Journal 40/2 (November, 2005): 184–210. _____. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Vol. 1–4. Grand Rapids: Baker, 22003. _____. “The Starting-Point of Calvin’s Theology: An Essay-Review.” Calvin Theological Journal 36/2 (November 2001): 314–42. _____. The Unaccommodated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Nauta, D. “Stand der Calvinforschung.” In Calvinus Theologus, edited by W.H. Neuser (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976), 71–84. Neuenhaus, Johannes. “Calvin als Humanist.” In Calvinstudien, edited by J. Bohatec (Leipzig: Rudolph Haupt, 1909), 1–26. Neuser, Wilhelm H. “Calvin's Urteil Uber den Rechtfertigungs-artikel des Regensburger Buches.” In Reformation und Humanismus: Robert Stupperich zum 65. Geburtsdag, edited by M. Greschat and J.F.G. Goeters (Witten: Luther Verlag, 1969), 176–94. _____, ed. Calvinus Ecclesiae Doctor. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1980. _____, ed. Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984. _____, ed. Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor. Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. _____, ed. Calvinus Servus Christi. Budapest: Presseabteilung des Raday-Kollegiums, 1988.

Select Bibliography

285

_____, ed. Calvinus Theologus. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1976. _____, and Brian G. Armstrong, ed. Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex. Vol. 36, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997. _____, et al., ed. Calvin’s Books. Festschrift dedicated to Peter De Kloer on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Heerenveen: Uitgeverij J.J. Groen en zoon, 1997. Newman, John Henry. Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification. New York: Scribner, Welford, and Armstrong, 1874. Nicole, Roger. “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 47/2 (1985): 197–225. Niesel, Wilhelm. “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 46 (1927): 410–30. _____. “Syllogismus practicus?” In Aus Theologie Und Geschichte Der Reformierten Kirche, Festgabe für E. F. Müller-Erlangen zu dessen 70. Geburtstage (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1933), 158–79. _____. The Theology of Calvin. Translated by H. Knight. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956. Nixon, Leroy. Complete Indexes to The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Noble, T. A. “Our Knowledge of God According to John Calvin.” Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982): 2–13. Oberman, Heiko A. The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. _____. “Die ‘Extra’-Dimension in der Theologie Calvins.” In Geist Und Geschichte Der Reformation, Festgabe Hanns Ruckert (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1966), 323–56. _____. Forerunners of the Reformation, The Shape of Late Medieval Thought, Illustrated by Key Documents. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. _____. The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. _____. “Initia Calvini: The Matrix of Calvn’s Reformation.” In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, edited by Wilhem H. Neuser, 113–54. _____. “Some Notes On The Theology of Nominalism.” Harvard Theological Review 53 (1960): 47–76. Ong, Walter J. Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Method. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958. Opitz, Peter. Calvins Theologische Hermeneutik. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1994. _____, ed. Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation: Historische und theologische Beiträge zur Calvinforschung. Zürich: TVZ Theologischer Verlag, 2003. Osterhaven, Maurice Eugene. “Calvin on the Covenant.” The Reformed Review 33 (1979/80): 136–49. Owen, Paul. “Calvin and Catholic Trinitarianism: An Examination of Robert Reymond’s Understanding of the Trinity and His Appeal to John Calvin.” Calvin Theological Journal 35/2 (November, 2000): 262–81. Pannenberg,Wolfhart. The Idea of God and Human Freedom. Translated by R.H. Wilson. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1973. Pannier, Jacques. Recherches Sur La Formation Intellectuelle Calvin. Paris: Librairie Alcan, 1931. Parker, T.H.L. Calvin: An Introduction to His Thought. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995. _____. “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification.” The Evangelical Quarterly 24 (1952): 101–7. _____. Calvin's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. American ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. _____. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 21993. _____. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 21993.

286

Selected Bibliography

_____. Calvin’s Preaching. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1992. _____. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975. _____. The Oracles of God: An Introduction to the Preaching of John Calvin. London and Redhill: Lutterworth Press, 1947. _____. Portrait of Calvin. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1940. _____. Supplementa Calviniana. London: The Tyndale Press, 1962. Partee, Charles. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2005 (1977). _____. “Calvin’s Central Dogma Again.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 18 (1987): 191–9. Perrin, Nicholas. “Was Calvin’s a ‘Testamentary’ Covenant?” Presbyterion 25/1 (1999): 32–44. Peterson, Robert A. Calvin’s Doctrine of Atonement. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983. Piper, John. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7 (1980): 2–32. Postema, Gerald Jay. “Calvin’s Alleged Rejection of Natural Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 24 (1971): 423–34. Potter, Mary Lane. “The Whole Office of the Law in the Theology of Calvin.” Journal of Law and Religion 3/1 (1985): 117–39. Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995. Quervain, Alfred de. Calvin, Sein Lehren und Kampfen. Berlin: Furche, 1926. Quistorp, Heinrich. Calvin's Doctrine of the Last Things. Translated by H. Knight. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1955. Rahner, Karl. “Justified and Sinner at the Same Time.” In Theological Investigations, vol. 6 (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1969), 218–30. _____. “Questions of Controversial Theology on Justification.” In Theological Investigations, vol. 4 (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966), 189–218. Rainbow, Jonathan Herbold. “Double Grace: John Calvin’s View of the Relationship of Justification and Sanctification.” Ex Auditu 5 (1989): 99–105. Reed, R.C. The Gospel as Taught by Calvin. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Reid, W. Stanford. “Justification by Faith According to John Calvin.” Westminster Theological Journal 42 (1979–80): 290–307. Reuter, Karl. Das Grundverständnis der Theologie Calvins, Unter Einbeziehung ihrer geschichtlichen Abhändigkeiten. Vol. 15/1, Beiträge zur Geschichte und lehre der Reformierten Kirche. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1963. Ritschl, Albrecht. The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation. Vol. 3, The Positive Development of the Doctrine. Clifton, NJ: Reference Book Publishers, Inc., 1966. _____. A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872. Ritschl, Dietrich. Memory and Hope: An Inquiry Concerning the Presence of Christ. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1967. Ritschl, Otto. Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus. Vol. 3, Die reformierte Theologie des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts in ihrer Enstehung und Entwicklung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926. Rogers, Eugene F., Jr. “Good Works and Assurance of Salvation in Three Traditions: Fides Praevisa, the Practical Syllogism, and Merit.” Scottish Journal of Theology 50/2 (1997): 131– 56. Rolston, Holmes, III. John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession. Richmond: John Knox, 1972. _____. “Responsible Man in Reformed Theology: Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession.” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 129–56. Rushdoony, Rousas John. “Calvin in Geneva: The Sociology of Justification by Faith.” Westminster Theological Journal 15 (1952): 11–39.

Select Bibliography

287

Santmire, H. Paul. “Justification in Calvin's 1540 Romans Commentary.” Church History 33 (1964): 294–313. Schnucker, Robert V., ed. Calviniana. Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin. Vol. 10, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1988. Schreiner, Susan E. “Calvin’s Use of the Natural Law (With Responses).” In A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law, edited by Michael Cromartie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 179–83. _____. The Theater of His Glory. Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1991. Schulze, L.F. Calvin’s Reply to Pighius. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege-Press Ltd., 1971. Schulze, Martin. Meditatio Futurae Vitae: ihr Begriff und ihre herrschende Stellung im System Calvins. Leipzig, 1901. Schützeichel, Heribert. Die Glaubenstheologie Calvins. Vol. 9, Beiträge Zur Ökumenischen Theologie. Edited by Heinrich Fries. München: Max Hueber Verlag, 1972. _____. “Die Guten Werke der Gerechtfertigen in der Sicht Calvins.” Catholica 53/1 (1999): 33– 53. _____. Katholische Calvin-Studien. Vol. 37, Trierer Theologische Studien. Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1980. Seeberg, Reinhold. Lehrbuch Der Dogmengeschichte. Vol. 4/2, Die Fortbildung der Reformatorischen Lehre und die Gegenreformatorisch Lehre. Basel/Stuttgart: Benno Schwabe & Co., n.d. _____. Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Translated by C.E. Hay. 2 vol. Grand Rapids: Baker, n.d. Seigel, Jerrold E. Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968. Selderhuis, Herman. “Kirche im Theater: Die Dynamik der Ekklesiologie Calvins.” In Calvin im Kontext der Schweizer Reformation, edited by Peter Opitz (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 195–214. _____, ed. Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Geneva: Droz, 2004. Spijker, Willem van’t. “‘Extra nos’ and ‘in nos’ by Calvin in a Pneumatological Light.” In Calvin & Calvin Studies, edited by Peter De Klerk (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1989), 39– 62. Stadtland, Tjarko. Rechtfertigung und Heiligung bei Calvin. Vol. 32, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Stauffer, Richard. Dieu, la création et la Providence dans la prédication de Calvin. Vol. 33, Basler und Berner Studien zur Historischen und systematischen Theologie. Edited by M. Geiger and A. Lindt. Berne: Peter Lang, 1978. Steinmetz, David C. “Calvin and His Lutheran Critics.” Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990): 179–94. _____. Calvin in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Stickelberger, Emanuel. John Calvin. Translated by D.G. Gelzer. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1959. Strathmann, Hermann. Calvins Lehre von der Busse in ihrer späterer Gestalt. Inauguraldissertation. Gotha: Druck von Friedrich Andreas Berthes, 1909. _____. “Die Enstehung der Lehre Calvins von der Busse.” In Calvin-studien, Festschrift Zum 400. Geburtstage Johann Calvins, edited by J. Bohatec (Leipzig: Verlag Von Rudolph Haupt, 1909), 187–245. Strohm, Christoph. “Methodology in Discussion of ‘Calvin and Calvinism’.” In Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, edited by Herman J. Selderhuis (Genève: Librairie Droz S.A., 2004), 65–105 Stuermann, Walter E. A Critical Study of Calvin's Concept of Faith. Tulsa, OK: University of Tulsa, 1952. Sundquist, Ralph R. “The Third Use of the Law in the Thought of Calvin: An Interpretation and Evaluation.” Ph.D. dissertation. Columbia University, 1970. Tamburello, Dennis E. Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

288

Selected Bibliography

Tavard, George H. The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Thielicke, Helmut. Theological Ethics. Vol. 1, Foundations. Edited by W.H. Lazareth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966. Thomas, John Newton. “The Place of Natural Theology in the Thought of John Calvin.” Journal of Religious Thought 15 (1958): 107–36. Torrance, James B. “The Concept of Federal Theology—Was Calvin a Federal Theologian?” In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 15–40. _____. “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in 17thCentury Scotland.” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51–76. Torrance, Thomas F. Calvin's Doctrine of Man. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. _____. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity.” Calvin Theological Journal 25/2 (1990): 165–93. Torrance, Thomas F. “Cheap and Costly Grace.” The Baptist Quarterly 22 (1968): 290–311. _____. “Intuitive and abstractive knowledge from Duns Scotus to John Calvin.” In De doctrina Ioannis duns Scoti, Acta Congressus Scotistici Internationalis, Oxonii et Edinburgi 11–17 sept. 1966 celebrati. Vol. 4, Scotismus decursu saeculorum, edited by C. Balic (Romae: Congressus Scotisticus Internationalis, 1968), 291–305. _____. “La philosophie et la théologie de Jean Mair ou Major, de Haddington.” Archives de Philosophie 32 (1969), 531–47; 33 (1970): 261–93. Troeltsch, Ernst. The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. Translated by O. Wyon. 2 vol. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1931. Trueman, Carl R. “Calvin and Calvinism.” In The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, edited by Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 225–44. Van Buren, Paul. Christ in Our Place: The Substitutionary Character of Calvin's Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edinburgh: Oliver And Boyd, 1957. Van 't Spijker, Willem, ed. Calvin: Erbe und Auftrag. Festschrift für Wilhelm Neuser zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Kampen: Kok, 1995. Venema, Cornelis P. Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. _____. “Heinrich Bullinger’s Correspondence on Calvin’s Doctrine of Predestination.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 17/4 (1986): 435–50. _____. “Justification by Faith: The Ecumenical, Biblical and Theological Dimensions of Current Discussion.” In Always Reforming, edited by Andrew McGowan (Leicester, England: Intervarsity, 2006), 289–327. _____. “The Twofold Nature of the Gospel in Calvin’s Theology: The ‘duplex gratia dei’ and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology.” Ph.D. dissertation. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1985. Vignaux, Paul. Justification et Prédestination au XIVe Siecle: Duns Scot, Pierre D'Auriole, Guillaume D'Occam, Gregoire De Rimini. Paris: Libraire Ernst Leroux, 1934. Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin's Doctrine of the Christian Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. _____. Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. _____. Calvin, Geneva, and the Reformation. A Study of Calvin as Social Reformer, Churchman, Pastor and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Walker, Williston. John Calvin, the Organiser of Reformed Protestantism, 1509–1564. With a bibliographical essay by John T. McNeill. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. Calvin And Augustine. Edited by S.G. Craig. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956. _____. Calvin and Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1931. Watson, Philip S. “Luther and Sanctification.” Concordia Theological Monthly 30 (1959): 243–59. Wawrykow, Joseph. “John Calvin and Condign Merit.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 83 (1992): 73–90.

Select Bibliography

289

Weber, Hans Emil. Reformation, Orthodoxie Und Rationalismus. Vol. 1/1, Von Der Reformation Zur Orthodoxie. Vol. 35, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie. Second Series. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1937. Weber, Henry Jacob. “The Formal Dialectical Rationalism of Calvin.” In Papers of the American Society of Church History, 2nd series, 8 (1928), 19–41. Weber, Herman. Die Theologie Calvins, Ihre Innere Systematik Im Lichte StrukturPsychologischer Forschungsmethode. Berlin: Otto Elsner, 1930. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by T. Parsons. New York: Scribner's, 1958. Wendel, Francois. Calvin: The Origins And Development of His Thought. Translated by P. Mairet. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Wernle, Paul. Der Evangelische Glaube Nach Den Hauptschriften Der Reformatoren. Vol. 3, Calvin. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1919. West, Charles C. “Justice Within the Limits of the Created World.” Ecumenical Review 27 (1975): 57–64. Willis, E. David. Calvin's Catholic Christology. Vol. 2, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought. Edited by H.A. Oberman. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966. _____. “Forgiveness and Gratitude: The Doctrine of Justification in the Heidelberg Catechism.” Harvard Divinity Bulletin 28 (1963): 11–24. _____. “Notes on A. Ganoczy's Calvin, Théologien De L'Église et du Ministère.” Bibliothèque D'Humanisme et Renaissance 30 (1968): 185–98. _____. “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin's Theology.” In The Context of Contemporary Theology, essays in honor of Paul Lehmann, edited by A.J. McKelway and E. David Willis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974), 43–63. Wolf, H.H. Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin. Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1958. Wright, David F. “Calvin’s Accommodating God.” In Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of Purer Religion, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G. Armstrong (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997), 3–20. Wübbenhorst, Karla. “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification: Variations on a Lutheran Theme.” In Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 99–118. Yu, Kwang-Woong. “Syllogismus practicus bei Calvin.” In Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, edited by Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 256–69. Zachman, Randall C. The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993. _____. “Crying to God on the Brink of Despair: The Assurance of Faith Revisited.” In Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae, edited by Herman Selderhuis (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 351–7. _____. John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. _____. “What Kind of Book Is Calvin’s Institutes?” Calvin Theological Journal 35/2 (November, 2000): 238–61.

Index

Accommodation (See God, accommodation of) Adam, 62, 63 Anselm, 74 Apostles Creed (See Creeds) influence upon the structure of Calvin’s theology, 42, 44, 51 Aquinas, Thomas, 109 Armstrong, Brian, 33, 35, 48, 77 Assurance of salvation (See Practical Syllogism), 108, 141, 160, 178 based upon Word and Spirit, 254–7 election and assurance, 248–54 good works as a secondary proof of faith, 258–60, 273 in later Reformed theology, 256 role of sacraments, 257 Scholastic doctrine of “moral conjecture,” 254–6, 273 Atonement (See Christ) Calvin’s view of, 74, 75, 77 limited or universal, 77 substitutionary, 85 Aquinas, Thomas, 109 Augustine, 74, 140, 211 Baker, J. Wayne, 185 Bandstra, Andrew J., 230 Baptism, 217–219 Barth, Karl, 18, 21, 25, 42, 43, 46, 118, 120, 135, 172, 198, 231 controversy with Brunner, 42, 43 view of election, 250 Barthian theology, 14, 19 Barth, Markus, 170 Barth, Peter, 21 Battles, Ford Lewis, 17 Bauke, Hermann, 16, 17, 18, 27, 28, 138, 262 Beeke, Joel R., 256 Bible authority and function, 46, 86, 181 “spectacles” for interpreting the knowledge of God as Creator, 57 Biblicism, Calvin’s, 17 Bohatec, Josef, 55, 114, 231 Bois, Henri, 18

Boisset, Jean, 18 Bondage of the will, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 Bouwsma, William J., 48, 136 Breen, Quirinus, 18, 48, 136 Bruggink, Donald Jay, 231 Brunner, Emil, 21, 42, 43, 48, 75 Brunner, Peter, 19, 91 Bucer, 116 Bullinger, Heinrich, 185 Calvin, John (See Institutes, Scholasticism) background of his thought, 18 different approaches to his theology, 14ff, 27, 195–6, 262–3 humanism of, 18, 48 and Scholasticism, 15, 18, 37, 77 structure of his theology, 33, 40, 50 Calvin and the Calvinists, 20, 77 Canlis, Julie, 155, 159 Caroli, 58 Carpenter, Craig B., 136, 198 Catechism of 1537, 133 Catechism of 1545, 133 Catholicism (See Roman Catholics, Roman Catholicism) Central dogma in Calvin’s theology, 15, 16 Chalcedon (See Creeds, Twofold Grace of God) Christ (See Faith, object of) active and passive obedience, 101 atoning death of, 72 Immanuel, 68 as King, 76, 77 as Mediator, 66, 68, 70, 71, 76, 77 mystical union with, 24, 87 obedience to the law, 71–2 object of faith our advocate, 76 person of, 67ff priestly office, 73, 76, 77 second Adam, 63 twofold office of, 145–8, 268 victory of, 76 work of, 71ff

292

Index

Christian Freedom, 244–6 Church Church Order, 222 discipline, 222–4 marks of the true church, 211 “mother of believers,” 208–11, 212 visible and invisible, 211 Church and sacraments, 51, 208–28 Coates, Thomas, 25, 229 Cochrane, Arthur C., 25, 43, 55, 230 Commentaries by Calvin, 43 Communion of the saints, 210 Complexio oppositorum (See Bauke, Dialectical Form of Calvin’s Theology), 16 Conscience, 55, 57, 223, 230, 244 Contarini, Gasparo, 163 Corruption of human nature, 62, 65 Covenant Calvin’s view, 183–187 covenant of works, 231 two-covenant view, 231 Creation, Calvin’s doctrine of, 58 “theater” of God’s glory, 56 Creeds, Apostles, 42, 44, 50, 51, 78 Athanasian, 58 Chalcedonian, 68 Nicene, 68 Dantine, Wilhelm, 198 Decrees, Calvin’s doctrine of (See Predestination) Dee, Simon Pieter, 24, 46, 114, 153, 154 Dialectical form of Calvin’s theology, 17, 27-8 Double Justification, 163–70 Doumerge, Emile, 24, 58, 84, 152, 153, 162, 168 Dowey, Edward A., Jr., 17, 20, 21, 26, 33–36, 38, 40–48, 53, 55, 59, 84, 86, 90, 229, 230, 250 Duns Scotus, 170 Duplex cognitio domini/Dei (See God, twofold knowledge of) Ebeling, Gerhard, 20, 25, 46 Edmondson, Stephen, 67 Elert, Werner, 25 Evans, William Borden, 152, 198 Existential knowledge (See Knowledge of God, existential character of) Extra-calvinisticum, 45, 47, 70, 71

Faber, Eva-Maria, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 35, 53, 58, 67, 90, 92, 141, 174, 209, 250, 252 Faith authored by the Holy Spirit, 89, 92 Calvin’s definition of, 89 in Calvin’s theology, 46, 88–93 certainty of, 90, 92 elements of, 89ff fiducia, 90 as knowledge, 89, 90, 92 not a human work, 103 object or scopus of, 46, 66, 90, 91, 92 relation to doubt, 90 Scholastic distinction between formed and unformed, 93, 182 Scholastic notion of implicit faith, 89 Free will, freedom of choice, 64, 65 Fuller, Daniel P., 25 Gamble, Richard C., 14 Ganoczy, Alexandre, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 69, 109, 112, 138, 143, 151, 170, 182, 208 Garcia, Mark A., 22, 24, 34, 83, 136, 155, 159, 167 George, Timothy, 181 Gerrish, Brian A., 219 Gloede, Gunter, 21 God (See Knowledge of God, Twofold Knowledge of God) glory of, 204–6 righteousness of, 200–3 God the Creator (See Knowledge of God the Creator) God the Redeemer (See Knowledge of God the Redeemer) Göhler, Alfred, 15, 24, 134, 170, 198 Goumaz, Louis, 104, 199 Hall, Basil, 77 Harkness, Georgia, 122 Hauck, Wilhelm-Albert, 34 Helm, Paul, 21, 43, 55, 58, 77, 104, 136, 174, 231, 258 Hendry, George S., 72, 85 Hesselink, I. John, 26, 229, 230, 231, 233, 246 Hirsch, E., 154 Hoekema, Anthony, 183 Holy Spirit (See Bible, Union with Christ) internal testimony of , 86 Minister of Christ’s liberality, 86 union with Christ by the Spirit, 83ff Humanism, 18, 48

Index Humanity and the image of God, 61, 62 Human sinfulness (See Sin, Sinfulness) Humility, 62, 105 Image of God, 114–5, 124 Imputation (See Justification, Union with Christ) Incarnation, 68, 69, 70 Institutes of the Christian Religion, 34, 50 1536 edition of, 34, 113, 150 1539 edition of, 34, 133 1559 edition of, 33, 133 credal model for, 51 Melanchthon’s influence on, 43, 265 order of topics, 49, 60 organization of, 49 relationship with commentaries and sermons, 33, 265 rhetoric of, 49 structure of, 41 various editions, 33, 133 Ireneus, 121 Jacobs, Paul, 19, 122, 250 Jansen, John F., 67, 73 Jedin, Hubert, 163 Jones, Serene, 38 Justification (See Double Justification, Righteousness) based upon an “alien righteousness,” 270 by faith alone, 95, 102ff, 166 by works, 102 causes of, 104, 199 in contemporary discussion, 10, 11 at Council of Trent, 99, 104 facere iustum (“to make just”), 99 first benefit of union with Christ, 95 forensic definition of, 23, 98 main hinge of Christian religion, 96–7, 134, 267–8 and necessity of good works, 176–80 Paul and James’ view, 180–3 priority of, 97 in Reformed orthodoxy, 151 and sanctification, 27, 135 Scholastic understanding of, 99, 100, 104 secondary status of forensic formulation, 151, 152 two things to be noted, 106–9, 269 Kendall, R.T., 77 Kingdom of God,

293

Calvin’s view of, 187–90 Kirk, Kenneth E., 25 Klempa, William, 231 Klingenburg, Georg, 26, 248, 249 Knowledge of God accommodated character of, 35, 36, 51, 58, 75 correlative nature, 34, 38 as derived from the external world, 54ff as derived from Scripture, 56ff essence incomprehensible to us, 36 existential character of, 38 in Jesus Christ, 36 and ourselves, 34ff twofold knowledge of God as Creator and Redeemer, 40, 41, 42, 45, 50, 71, 78 Knowledge of God the Creator, 50, 53–9, 70 apart from Scripture, 54–6 from Scripture, 56–9 Knowledge of God the Redeemer, 50, 60–79 Kolfhaus, Wilhelm, 19, 24, 83, 88, 122, 153, 154, 209 Köstlin, J., 20, 23, 40, 41, 114 Kreck, Walter, 19 Krusche, Werner, 24, 45, 46, 83, 86 Kuizenga, Henry, 206, 253 Lane, Anthony N.S., 163 Lang, D.A., 135, 198 La Vallee, Armand Aime, 18, 37 Law Christ’s obedience to, 71–2 of Moses, 233 nuda lex, 233 as a rule of gratitude, 235, 241, 244–7 Law and Gospel, 22, 229–47, 271–3 Calvin’s use of terms, 229–36 legal promises, 165 narrow and broad use of “Gospel”, 236 repugnatio of law and gospel, 240–3 three “uses” of the law, 240–3 unity of substance, difference of administration, 236–40 Lehmann, Paul, 46 Leith, John H., 17, 122, 231 Lillback, Peter A., 167, 170, 183, 185, 231 Limited atonement (See Atonement) Link, Christian, 250 Lobstein, P., 35 Loci communes (See Melanchton, Institutes) in Calvin’s Institutes, 43, 50 of Melanchthon, 43, 50 Lord’s Supper, 219–21

294

Index

transsubstantiation and consubstantiation, 220–1 Luther, Martin, 167, 198, 222 difference from Calvin, 15, 249, 263, 267 Lutheran assessment of Calvin’s view of law and gospel, 229 opposition to the “third use” of the law, 25, 180 Lüttge, Willy, 22, 23, 24, 34, 100, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 162 Maury, Pierre, 43 McKee, Elsie Anne, 33, 48 McKeon, Richard, 48 McKim, Donald K., 21 McNeill, John T., 46, 55, 230 Meditation on the future life, 126–7 Melanchthon, Philip, (See Loci Communes), 116, 265 influence of Loci Communes upon structure of Calvin’s Institutes, 265 Merit, 65, 107, 109, 176, 185–6, 234, 243, 250, 251, 254 Milner, Benjamin Charles, 14, 16, 42, 137 Millet, Olivier, 48 Moltmann, Jürgen, 19 Mülhaupt, Erwin, 15, 23 Muller, Richard A., 9, 10, 14, 15, 21, 26, 33, 37, 43, 50, 250 Mystical union (See Union with Christ) Natural law, 55, 230–1 Natural theology, 19, 20, 21, 42, 43, 44, 60 Neo-orthodoxy, 14, 18 interpretation of Calvin’s theology, 14 Neuser, Wilhelm H., 14, 17, 18, 35, 40, 48, 231, 248 “New perspective on Paul,” 11 Nicole, Roger, 77 Niesel, Wilhelm, 14, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 135, 137, 154, 156, 159, 163, 197, 209, 212, 226, 233, 248, 249, 250, 253, 258, 260 Noble, T.A., 35 Nominalism, nominalists, 200 of John Major, 18 Oberman, Heiko Augustinus, 18, 20, 70, 200 Ockham, 170 Opitz, Peter, 18, 24, 35, 46, 53, 58, 67, 91, 183, 250 Ordo cognoscendi, 43, 45

Ordo recte docendi, 33, 45, 48, 49, 133, 264 Ordo salutis, 111, 154, 198–9 in later Calvinism, 154 Osiander, Andreas, 22, 154–162, 171 Calvin’s polemic against, 154–161 position on justification, 155–158 view of union with Christ, 155–159 Owen, Paul, 58 Pannier, Jacques, 17, 18 Parker, T.H.L., 18, 19, 34, 35, 40–46, 48, 53, 204, 212, 230 Partee, Charles B., 16, 18, 48, 126 Penance, sacrament of, 114, 170, 224–5 Perfectionism, 131 Peterson, Robert A., 67, 77 Piety, Calvin’s understanding of, 38 Postema, Gerald Jay, 43 Potter, Mary Lane, 55, 230, 247 Practical Syllogism (syllogismus practicus) (See Assurance), 248–61 thesis of Max Weber, 248 Preaching, 211–5 Predestination, Calvin’s doctrine of (See Atonement), 27 election and assurance, 248–54 glory of God in election, 206 signa posteriora of election, 252 Providence, Calvin’s doctrine of, 58 Quistorp, Heinrich, 126 Rainbow, Jonathan Herbold, 146 Redemption Calvin’s interpretation of, 68, 85, 86 Trinitarian nature of, 85–6 Reformed orthodoxy (See Scholasticism), 15, 250 Regeneration (See Sanctification) Regensburg Colloquy, 1541, 163 Repentance (See Sanctification) Reuter, Karl, 18 Revelation (See Natural Theology) general, 21 general and special, 41 in Jesus, 36 through Scripture, 57 Reward (See Double Justification) for good works, 167–9 as motive for good works, 179 Rhetoric Calvin’s use of, 48, 49, 136–7 Righteousness (See Justification)

Index faith and works righteousness, 101-6 of Christ, 101 imputative, 101 infused, 99–101 relative, 99–101 Ritschl, Albrecht, 75, 114, 135 Ritschl, Otto, 15, 23, 27 Rolston, Holmes, III, 231 Roman Catholic critique of Reformer’s doctrine of justification, 11, 135, 164, 176 Roman Catholicism Calvin’s polemics against, 106, 163 Sacraments (See Baptism, Lord’s Supper), 51, 158, 215–7 Sanctification, 111–31 born of faith, 111–2, 133 Christ, the pattern for, 123 and the Christian life, 122–9 different terms for, 112, 120 an “effect” and “inferior cause” of justification, 172–5 gospel and legal repentance, 116 and justification, 27 nature of, 111–21 not “mercenary,” 140–1 self-denial, 124–6 timor Dei as motive for, 114, 115–6, 117 two parts: mortification and vivification, 113, 118 a work of the Holy Spirit, 113 Santmire, H. Paul, 201 Scholasticism, 37, 38, 137 (See Reformed orthodoxy) Calvin’s polemics against, 37, 89, 106 Calvin’s positive appropriation of scholastic distinctions, 174 doctrine of justification, 107, 109, 170 “moral conjecture,” 254–6 Reformed scholasticism, 15 Scholastics, 64, 224, 254 of Sorbonne, 37, 39 Schreiner, Susan E., 55, 231 Schulze, Martin, 126 Scripture (See Bible) Seeberg, Reinhold, 15, 25 Seigel, Jerrold E., 48 Selderhuis, Herman, 21, 163, 249 Semen religionis, 54 Sensus divinitatis, 54 Seripando, Girolamo, 163 Sin, Sinfulness

295

fall into, 62 God’s wrath against, 74 human condition, 62ff original, 63, 64, 66 Sola fide (See Justification), 105 Stadtland, Tjarko, 22, 25, 27, 34, 106, 135 Stauffer, Richard, 17, 53 Steinmetz, David, 21, 37, 43 Stoicism, 125–6 Strathmann, Hermann, 114 Strohm, Christoph, 21 Stuermann, Walter E., 16, 23, 24, 35, 64, 90, 150, 152, 153, 154, 162 Summum bonum, 25 Sundquist, Ralph R., 26 Syllogismus practicus, 26, 90, 273–4 Max Weber’s thesis, 26 Tamburello, Dennis E., 83 Thielicke, Helmut, 25, 229 Thomas, John Newton, 43 Torrance, James B., 231 Torrance, Thomas F., 18, 58, 61, 118 Total depravity, 65 Trent, Council of (See Justification), 143, 163 Trinitarian ordering of Calvin’s theology (See Apostles Creed), 45, 50, 85, 86, 146 Trinity, Calvin’s doctrine of, 57, 58 Troeltsch, Ernst, 15 Trueman, Carl R., 21 Two-fold Grace of God (See Justification, Sanctification) analogy of sun and heat, 173, 258-9 in Calvin studies, 13ff distinct in concept, 138–40, 269–71 twofold righteousness, 96 integral unity of aspects, 268–9 order of treatment in Institutes, 132–6 questions regarding in Calvin studies, 267 relation of aspects, 133–47 in relation to the interpretation of Calvin’s theology, 27, 195–7, 264–6 Roman Catholic confusion of two aspects, 141 rooted in Christ’s twofold office, 145 simultaneous, 142, 146–7 Trinitarian and Christological basis for, 195–207, 266 use of Chalcedonian formula “distinction without separation,” 137–45, 148 within the structure of Calvin’s theology, 33ff, 78 Twofold knowledge of ourselves, 60

296

Index

Union with Christ (See Holy Spirit, Twofold Grace of God), 24, 83–94 by faith, 88ff end of the gospel, 94 and imputation of Christ’s righteousness, 150–62 Van Buren, Paul, 61, 67, 72, 75, 85 Vocation (See Sanctification), 129 Walker, Williston, 18 Wallace, Ronald S., 24, 122, 125, 163, 212, 213, 225 Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, 35, 58 Weber, Hans Emil, 15, 23, 25, 27 Weber, Henry Jacob, 17 Weber, Herman, 17

Weber, Max, 26, 248 Wendel, Francois, 17, 18, 24, 48, 87, 153, 154, 200, 211, 212, 218, 221, 226 Wernle, Paul, 23, 25, 46, 135 Willis, E. David, 17, 18, 20, 36, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 58, 70, 71, 109, 112, 137, 167, 170, 188 Wolf, H.H., 237 Wright, David F., 35 Wübbenhorst, Karla, 25 Yu, Kwang-Woong, 248 Zachman, Randall C., 26, 55, 248, 249, 256, 258 Zwingli, 220