Journal: Westminster Theological JournalVolume: WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009)Article: John Calvins Subordinate Doctrine Of Justification By WorksAuthor: Steven R. Coxhead

John Calvins Subordinate Doctrine Of Justification By WorksSteven R. Coxhead

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

I. IntroductionAn important aspect that needs clarification in the current debate over justification in Reformed circles is therelationship of justification by works and justification by faith in Gods plan of salvation. In a previous article, Iargued that John Calvins explanation of the concept of personal righteousness in Ezek 18 clearly showsthat Calvin accepted the idea of a legitimate doctrine of justification by works that functioned in parallel withbut subordinate to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.1 My findings in that article supported theobservation of Peter Lillback that Calvins law/spirit hermeneutic allowed him to identify a subordinaterighteousness . . . that is imputed to the believers works, which operates in tandem with the righteousnessof Christ yet in no way detracts from justification by faith alone.2Lillbacks assertion of a subordinate doctrine of justification by works in Calvins system of theology hasbeen opposed by a certain number of scholars of Reformed persuasion, and has even been labeled bysome as heretical. David Engelsma, for example, asserts that Lillback makes Calvin teach the heresy ofjustification by faith and works.3 Mark Karlberg, in speaking of Lillbacks thesis on Calvin, has also statedthat in the teaching of the new Westminster school, justification is attained by faith and works.4

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 2Where then does the truth lie in this important issue? What did Calvin teach about justification by works? Itwould seem best to let Calvin speak for himself, which is what I will attempt to do in the discussion below.The conclusion that emerges may be surprising to some but hopefully edifying to all.

II. Personal Righteousness In Calvins Institutes And In His CommentariesOur concern in this section is to examine Calvins teaching on human righteousness in the 1559 edition ofthe Institutes and in his commentaries.5 It will be seen that Calvins teaching on personal righteousness inthese texts is consistent with his explanation of the concept of righteousness that has been observedpreviously in his teaching on Ezek 18. Although it is true that the emphasis in the Institutes is very muchupon justification by faith alone, the idea of a subordinate doctrine of justification by works is clearly presentin the Institutes and also in Calvins commentaries.

1. Calvins Concept Of Righteousness1. The meaning of iustitia. Given that Calvin conducted his most important theological work in Latin, it isnecessary to investigate his use of the Latin word iustitia, which was commonly utilized in his teaching onrighteousness. Calvin does not often define what he means by the term iustitia but generally assumes thathis readers are familiar with its meaning. In terms of its semantic range, the word iustitia can carry therelated senses of justice, fairness, and uprightness.6

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 3All of these senses of the term iustitia can be found in Calvins Institutes and in his commentaries, as thediscussion below will illustrate.

There has been a fair amount of discussion on the history of the concept of righteousness and the use ofthe term iustitia in western theology. Alister McGrath in particular argues that there has frequently been animplicit equation of Hebraic and western concepts of righteousness . . . in [western] theological works,which has resulted in western concepts of justice coming to be employed in the articulation of theChristian doctrine of justification.7 If true, this is obviously problematic to the extent that the semantics ofthe original OT concepts of righteousness may have been overridden by the semantic informationassociated with the word iustitia and related terminology from the Latin linguistic context. Indeed, McGrathargues that by the second century AD, the Latin term iustitia had acquired well-established juristicconnotations which were to exert considerable influence over future theological interpretation of biblicalrighteousness concepts.8 He also points out that the Ciceronian definition of iustitia as reddens unicuiquequod suum est . . . had become normative by this time.9 McGrath is of the opinion that the Ciceroniandefinition of iustitia encapsulates the western concept of iustitia distributiva, the due of each person beingestablished through the iuris consensus, and embodied in ius.10 McGraths observations are relevant to ourdiscussion of Calvins use of the term iustitia below.2. Righteousness as justice and equity. Given that iustitia can convey the idea of righteousness as well asthat of justice, it is not surprising to find a number of examples where Calvin interprets OT righteousnessconcepts in terms of iustitia in the sense of justice. For example, in his explanation in the Institutes of thephrase justice and righteousness ( ) in Jer 22:3, Calvin explains the Hebrew term interms of justice, where justice means to receive into safekeeping, to protect, vindicate, and free theinnocent.11In addition to the idea of justice, Calvin often explains biblical concepts of righteousness in terms of aequitas(i.e., equity ). A clear example from the Institutes

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 4is found in his discussion on self-denial in Titus 2:12 where he states that righteousness embraces all theduties of equity in order that to each one be rendered what is his own.12 It is to be noted that the wording ofthis proposition in the Latin is virtually identical to the Ciceronian concept of iustitia as defined by McGrath.Further evidence for a strong conceptual link between iustitia and aequitas in Calvins thinking is found in hisexpositions of iustitia in his commentaries. For example, commenting on the phrase in Gen18:19, Calvin says that this phrase properly denotes the duties of the Second Table . . . of the Law ratherthan Gods law as a whole.13 While he acknowledges that the phrase is used in this particularcontext in Genesis to denote the whole of Gods law, this only happens by way of synecdoche.14Significantly, he explains the meaning of the phrase in terms of that equity, by which to everyone is given what is his own, from which he derives the meaning of as denoting the rectitude andhumanity which we cultivate with our brethren, when we endeavour to do good to all, and when we abstainfrom all wrong, fraud, and violence.15 The mention of equity in connection with at this point isparticularly significant in that it strongly suggests that Calvins understanding of OT righteousness conceptshas been influenced by the western concept of iustitia distributiva.Other examples where Calvin draws a close link between justice and equity include his comments on Ps15:2. Here Calvin effectively interprets in terms of the second table of the Ten Commandments:justice is a matter of doing good to others and abstaining from evil.16 In Ps 45:6, he speaks of Solomonslove of uprightness and equity.17 Calvins interpretation of the phrase in Mic 6:8 is alsorelevant at this point. Although he translates here by the Latin word iudicia, iudicia is closely relatedto iustitia in his thinking, as can be seen from the fact that he also explains iudicia in terms of the secondtable of the Ten Commandments: to do justice [is] to observe what is equitable towards men, and also toperform the duties of mercy.18Evidence from the book of Ezekiel also confirms the close connection between iustitia and aequitas in

Calvins thinking. For example, iustitia and aequitas are found paralleled in Calvins comments on Ezek 7:23and 14:23.19 Also relevant here is Calvins definition of in his comments on Ezek 18:5, where

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 5he says that justice is nothing but equity, fidelity, integrity, when we abstain altogether from fraud andviolence, and deal with our brethren as we wish them to deal with us.20Calvin understands that the idea of righteousness as equity is taught in Gods law. This is evident in hiscomments in the Institutes on the moral law, where he states that the law . . . enjoins us to observe rightand equity toward men.21 He also understands the prophetic call to repentance in terms of equity (amongother things).22 The examples mentioned above, where Calvin links righteous behavior to the second tableof the Ten Commandments, also shows how Calvin understands the idea of justice as equity as beingtaught in the law. Commenting on the terms and in Isa 56:1, Calvin again makes reference tothe second table of the Ten Commandments and explains that the sense of the terms and includes all the duties which men owe to each other, and which consist not only in abstaining from doingwrong, but also in rendering assistance to our neighbours.23 His exegetical comments on Luke 1:75 alsolink righteousness with equity: Righteousness covers all the duties of charity, for God asks nothing else ofus in the second table of the Law, but to render each man his due.24 The language of rendering to eachperson what he or she is due or owed parallels the Ciceronian concept of justice as equity.It is also significant in the light of the observations presented above that the idea of righteousness as justiceand equity is not merely employed by Calvin for the relationship of human beings to each other but also forthe relationship of human beings with God. When it comes to our relationship with God, righteousness isalso a matter of giving to God what is his due. For Calvin, the beginning and foundation of righteousness isfound in the proper worship of God.25 Indeed, the chief part of righteousness is to render to God his rightand honor, of which he is impiously defrauded when we do not intend to subject ourselves to his control.26Once again, the words suum ius . . . reddere that appear in the original Latin of the previous quotationclearly recall the so-called Ciceronian definition of iustitia. Likewise, in his comments on Deut 6:25 Calvinspeaks of uprightness in terms of exercis[ing] equity one towards

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 6another and giving God His right.27 It is apparent, therefore, that Calvins understanding of righteousnesshas been influenced by the sense of iustitia distributiva which was common in western philosophical thoughtof the time.From the evidence presented above, we may conclude that righteousness in Calvins thinking is closelyconnected with the idea of equity. Iustitia involves equity in human relationships and equity in the exercise ofjustice.28 Furthermore, in the light of the evidence, it is clear that the concept of iustitia distributiva is verystrong in Calvins conceptual framework and that iustitia in his thinking frequently has the ideas of justiceand equity at its core.3. Righteousness as perfect uprightness. While justice or fairness in the sense of rendering to each personwhat is his or her right can be considered to be the core semantic component of iustitia in Calvins thinking,it is also true that he uses the term iustitia to express the idea of uprightness or right behavior. Heacknowledges, for example, the theoretical possibility of acquiring righteousness by acting properly.29 Thisidea of righteousness as right behavior is typically expressed in terms of obedience to Gods law. For Calvin,the standard for determining proper behavior is Gods will. Gods will is the most perfect rule of all justice.30Furthermore, God has revealed his will in the law.31 The law has been divinely handed down to us toteach us perfect righteousness . . . which conforms to the requirements of Gods will.32 Thus, the preceptsof the law are called righteousnesses, and all its commandments are righteous-nesses.33 The law as awhole in itself contains perfect righteousness and is the doctrine of perfect righteousness.34 In this way,the law functions as the standard of righteousness. Hence, Calvin states that everlasting righteousness is

not comprehended elsewhere than in Godslaw.35In addition, Calvin acknowledges that Scripture not only calls the precepts of the law righteousness, but italso applies this term to the works of the saints.36 Because Gods law is the doctrine of perfectrighteousness, it follows that human obedience to the law is also righteousness. Calvin notes in particularthe teaching of Deut 6:25, where he explains that the keeping of the Law is in itself righteousness.37 Hestates in regard to Ps 119:144 that, in addition to the righteousness of Gods law, there exists a clearerdefinition of righteousness,

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 7which is, that righteousness consists in our keeping ourselves within the bounds of the law.38 Calvin alsoacknowledges that there are passages of Scripture that grace good works with the title of righteousnessand that speak of observances of commandments in terms of justifications or righteous-nesses.39 Headmits that the word righteousness often has the same effect in Scripture as observance of the Law.40Adam, for example, was supposed to practice righteousness by obeying Gods commandments.41It is clear from the evidence cited above that Calvin acknowledges that righteousness is frequently to bedefined in terms of obedience to the law; but it also needs to be noted at this juncture that, as far as Calvinis concerned, only perfect obedience to the law counts as true righteousness.42 The idea of complete orperfect obedience to Gods law can helpfully be designated by the terms absolute righteousness or absoluteobedience. The concept of absolute righteousness is very prominent in Calvins system of theology, as thefollowing evidence from the Institutes makes clear.Calvin frequently states that only the complete observance of the law counts as righteousness.43 Heobserves that the Lord often testifies that he recognizes no righteousness of works except in the perfectobservance of his law.44 Calvin argues that if it is true that in the law we are taught the perfection ofrighteousness, then it also follows that the complete observance of the law is perfect righteousness beforeGod.45 No other righteousness than the complete observance of the law is allowed in heaven.46 Calvinsconcept of absolute righteousness is particularly evident when he says that even if it were possible for us tohave some wholly pure and perfect works, yet . . . one sin is enough to wipe out and extinguish everymemory of that previous righteousness.47 Thus, the law . . . announces death and judgment to all who donot maintain perfect righteousness in works.48

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 8In Calvins thinking, the promises of eternal life that are offered in Gods law are conditional upon absoluteobedience to the law. Invoking the teaching of Deut 30:19, Calvin states that it cannot be denied, that thereward of eternal salvation, as promised by the Lord, awaits the perfect obedience of the Law.49 Likewise,he acknowledges that the promises of the law, in so far as they are conditional, depend upon perfectobedience to the law.50 In the precepts of the law, God is but the rewarder of perfect righteousness.51Other places in the Institutes where Calvin teaches the necessary condition of absolute obedience to the lawinclude 2.7.15; 3.12.1; 3.17.1, 13; and 3.18.10.The concept of absolute righteousness is also prominent in Calvins commentaries. In fact, the termabsolute righteousness appears in his comments on Rom 2:13.52 In his commentaries, Calvin teaches thatdoing the law is not to obey in part, but to fulfil everything that belongs to righteousness.53 Therighteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works.54 What is required [for righteousness] isobedience, perfect and complete in all its parts, according to the promise [of Lev 18:5].55 Because the lawjustifies him who fulfils all its commands, being accounted righteous before God is only where we renderperfect obedience to the law.56 That perfect obedience to the law is righteousness and carries the rewardof eternal life derives from God, who declares that they who have fulfilled it shall live.57 The law promiseslife only on the . . . condition of perfect obedience, and salvation is promised only for perfect obedience ofthe Law.58 The law requires of us perfect righteousness, and pronounces death on all who have

transgressed any part of it.59It is significant at this juncture to note how Calvin understands the condition for Israels keeping of theMosaic covenant as being her absolute obedience to the law of Moses. For example, in the introduction tohis discussion of Exod 19:1-8, Calvin divides the revelation delivered via Moses into two parts: on the

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 9one hand, there is the general doctrine that testifies of Gods gratuitous adoption and salvation by mercy;on the other hand, there is the special command that gives to the Mosaic covenant the peculiar propertyof its conditionality.60 Corresponding to these two aspects of Mosaic revelation, Moses has two mainfunctions: whenever he prescribes expiatory rites, Moses speaks of Gods mercy; but whenever thecommands of the law are in view, we are dealing with the separate office that was placed upon Moses,whereby he demand[ed] perfect righteousness of the people.61 It is also relevant at this point to note thatCalvin characteristically interprets the Mosaic warnings on the necessity of doing all of the torah in absoluteterms. As Calvin puts it in his comments on Deut 28:58: Perfect obedience is required by the words, to doall the words that are written in the Law.624 . The general impossibility of perfect uprightness. Calvin is open in acknowledging that he willinglyconfess[es] that perfect obedience to the law is righteousness; but obviously, on the level of righteousnessdefined absolutely, he must and does deny that such righteousness exists in any human being (apart fromChrist).63 He denies, for example, that perfect righteousness exists anywhere . . . not because [the law] isdefective and mutilated of itself, but because, due to the weakness of our flesh, it is nowhere visible.64Calvin is clearly aware that it is one thing to acknowledge a concept of law righteousness but another thingwhether we can live up to such obedience.65 It is precisely when this question is posed that the feeblenessof the law shows itself, and therefore because [such] observance of the law is found in none of us, we areexcluded from the promises of life that are offered in the law.66 For Calvin, the teaching of the law is farabove human capacity such that we can only view from afar the proffered promises and derive [no]benefit from them.67 The problem is that there is no one, not only of the common folk, but of the mostperfect persons, who can fulfill [the law].68 Because perfection is

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 10not possible in this life, then the law in and of itself can only accuse and condemn.69 The following passagecaptures Calvins understanding of the matter.

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

Other passages from the Institutes that speak of the impossibility of keeping the law include 3.2.1; 3.12.1;3.15.3; 3.17.1, 3; and 3.18.9.Similar teaching is found in Calvins commentaries. Commenting on Deut 30:11, he states that the keepingof [the law] is impossible, on account of its extreme rigour.71 Discussing Hab 2:4, he says: If we are notrighteous except according to the covenant of the law, then we are not righteous except through a full andperfect observance of the law.72 Reflecting on Luke 10:26, he makes the point that it is impossible for us tofulfil [the laws] commands.73 Speaking about Acts 15:10, he says that human strength is not able to copewith the keeping of the Law.74 In his commentary on Romans, he states: We do not deny that absoluterighteousness is prescribed in the law, but since all men are convicted of offense, we assert the necessity ofseeking for another righteousness . . . [for] no one is justified by works.75 Likewise, in his commentary onGalatians he writes: None is righteous by the works of the law, because there is none who does them. We

admit that the doers of the law, if there were any, would be righteous. But since that is a conditionalagreement, all are excluded from life because none offers the righteousness that he ought.76 Thesequotations from Calvins commentaries confirm his teaching in Ezek 18 that no perfect observer of the lawcan be found.77It is obvious, therefore, in the light of the evidence presented above, that righteousness is frequently thoughtof by Calvin in absolute terms. Calvins view on absolute righteousness as it applies to humanity can besummarized in the following words: The Lord promises [no blessing] except to perfect keepers of his law,and no one of the kind is to be found.78 The clarity of Calvins teaching on this issue, along with the relativefrequency of such teaching in the

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 11Institutes and in his commentaries, shows how prominent the concept of absolute righteousness is inCalvins system of theology.5. Righteousness as relative holiness. Even though the concept of absolute righteousness is a key elementin Calvins system, it would be a mistake to conclude on the basis of this fact that absolute righteousness isall there is to his understanding of righteousness. An investigation of his Institutes and commentaries showsthat he also believes in a relative form of righteousness that operates in the context of Gods covenantmercy. This concept will be referred to in this article as covenant righteousness or covenant obedience.Covenant righteousness is the right standing before God that a member of the covenant enjoys on the basisof covenant obedience or loyalty, which consists of a genuine commitment to living ones life in accordancewith Gods word.Even though Calvin stresses the idea of absolute righteousness in his system of theology, it is neverthelesshighly significant that he acknowledges a concept of relative righteousness which is performed by believersin the context of covenant grace. When he says that it is said with good reason that the lives of believers,framed to holiness and righteousness, are pleasing to [God] and that in all covenants of his mercy theLord requires of his servants in return uprightness and sanctity of life, lest his goodness be mocked, heeffectively gives expression to a concept of covenant righteousness.79 When he says that it is necessaryever [to] strive in the direction of our calling in order not to renounce our right of adoption, a similar ideaemerges.80 Calvin acknowledges, therefore, a form of righteousness that consists of holy living and which isnecessary for the eschatological salvation of believers in the outworking in history of Gods covenants ofgrace.Further evidence of righteousness as relative holiness is found in the Institutes, 3.17.10. In this sectionCalvin argues that the sense in which the title righteous, which is customarily applied to believers, oughtto be understood is that even though believers are called righteous on the basis of their holiness of life,this righteousness is subordinate to the righteousness of faith, because the righteous rather lean to thepursuit of righteousness than actually fulfill righteousness itself.81 It could be argued that Calvins languageappears to be a touch convoluted at this point, but effectively what he is saying is that believers in and ofthemselves do not possess absolute righteousness; rather, they possess the absolute righteousness ofChrist through faith, but also, as a result of this, a relative form of personal righteousness, which is due tothe work of Gods Spirit

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 12and which is treated by God in the context of covenant grace as worthy of reward. As Calvin puts it: Forbelievers uprightness, albeit partial and imperfect, is a step toward immortality.82 A concept of covenantrighteousness exists, therefore, in Calvins thinking; and such righteousness is understood by Calvin asbeing ordinarily a necessary element in the process of salvation by which God leads the elect into the fullpossession of eternal life.83Elsewhere Calvin speaks of covenant righteousness in terms of a form of righteousness that God rewards in

a manner not strictly related to equity. In his discussion in the Institutes on the significance of Heb 6:10,which is a verse that implies that God rewards the works of believers, Calvin again identifies a relative formof works righteousness that operates in the context of covenant grace. As part of the free covenant of[Gods] mercy, God has promised to reward the labor of his servants, so that however unworthy ourservices, a reward will not be lacking from Gods generosity.84 In this context, Gods justice refers more tothe truth of the divine promise than to the equity of rendering what is due.85 In other words, the works ofbelievers are rewarded in the context of the grace of the forgiveness of sins that is offered within thecovenant relationship.Turning now to Calvins commentaries, in explaining the sense in which Noah was a righteous man, Calvinacknowledges that Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God, because, by living uprightly andholily, he kept himself pure from the common pollutions of the world.86 Noah is thus an example of the factthat, in the Scriptures, certain people are called just and upright, not who are in every respect perfect, andin whom there is no defect; but who cultivate righteousness purely, and from their heart.87 Calvin goes onto explain that this acknowledgment of righteousness stems from the fact that God does not act towards hisown people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law; for,if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, hepronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.88A further example of righteousness as relative holiness is found in Calvins discussion of the nature of therighteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job in Ezek 14:14. How is it that these three men can be described assaving themselves

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 13through their own righteousness? Once again Calvin resorts to Gods gratuitous favour as the explanation:Because God pardons his sons . . . hence he accepts their works: so he acknowledges them also as just.89 Calvin notes that the beginning of [this kind of ] righteousness . . . is a gratuitous reconciliation by whichall the faults of the faithful are buried: whence it happens also that their integrity, although not perfect, is stillpleasing to God.90Calvins explanation of the righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke 1:6 is another case in point.Calvin understands the righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth in terms of devout and righteous living.91The righteousness ascribed to them was theirs not on account of their merit, but on account of the graceof Christ, but it was because the Lord did not impute their sins to them, that He granted their holythoughimperfectlives the distinction of righteousness.92 The righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth,therefore, involved a genuine though imperfect commitment to doing Gods will in the context of covenantgrace. According to the covenant that God makes with his people, whose first article is free reconciliation,and daily forgiveness . . . [m]en are reckoned righteous and blameless, because their whole life testifies thatthey are devoted to righteousness.93 Calvin also says that we should not neglect this definition, that therighteous are those who form their lives according to the precepts of the Law.94 This quotation capturesCalvins definition of covenant righteousness, which involves a person seeking to model the whole of oneslife in accordance with Gods will as revealed in his law and in the context of covenant grace.Other examples that are worthy of mention at this point include Calvins interpretation of Peters use of theterm in 1 Pet 4:18. Here Calvin makes the point that the righteous [are] not those who arealtogether perfect in righteousness, but who strive to live righteously.95 Likewise, in explaining the idea ofwalking in the light in 1 John 1:7, Calvin says that this idea is not to be understood in terms of total purity;rather, it is an expression that is accommodated to the grasp of men.96 He is said to be like God whoaspires after His likeness, however distant from it he may yet be . . . he who in sincerity of heart spendsevery part of his life in Gods fear and service and worships Him faithfully, may be regarded as walking inthe light, for he keeps to the right way, even though in

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 14many things he may err and groan under the burden of the flesh.97 Commenting on the idea in 1 John 2:17that the doers of Gods will abide forever, Calvin says that John is not dealing here with the perfect keepingof the Law, but with the obedience of faith, which, although imperfect, is nevertheless approved by God.98Finally, in what is a particularly interesting comment, Calvin acknowledges, in the context of Pauls teachingon justification by faith in Rom 4:6, that in other parts of Scripture works, and other blessings also, aresometimes stated to be imputed for righteousness.99

2. Calvins Concept Of JustificationAccording to McGrath, The concept of justification (Latin, iustificatio) is inextricably linked with that ofrighteousness (Latin, iustitia), both semantically and theologically.100 In agreement with this statement, it isnecessary to consider briefly Calvins understanding of justification. As one would expect, the pattern ofjustification that emerges in Calvins teaching neatly corresponds to the pattern that we have seen abovewith respect to the concept of righteousness.1 . The general meaning of justification . On the general concept of justification, Calvin understandsjustification to mean acquittal from sin. Because iniquity is abominable to God, so no sinner can find favor in[Gods] eyes in so far as he is a sinner and so long as he is reckoned as such.101 To justify a person,however, means nothing else than to acquit of guilt him who was accused, as if his innocence wereconfirmed.102 Applying this to the situation of being justified in the sight of God, a person is justified who isreckoned in the condition not of a sinner, but of a righteous man.103 Calvin also describes justification asthe acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men.104 Calvins mention in thiscontext of coram Dei tribunali and his speaking of God in judicial terms shows that justification isfundamentally forensic in nature in his understanding.105 Being deemed or reckoned as righteous is thecore, therefore, of what it means to be justified. Calvin also notes that Paul speaks of justification in terms ofacceptance and the imputation of righteousness. 106 In discussing justification in further detail, hedistinguishes between two forms of justification, namely, justification by faith and justification by works.2. Justification by faith. The importance of justification by faith for Calvin can be seen in the way that heopens his defining chapter on justification in the Institutes, when he says that mans only resource forescaping from the curse of the

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 15law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith.107 Justification by faith is necessary precisely because wecannot be justified by works.108 In other words, because no ordinary human being can meet the standardof perfect obedience to Gods law, a solution must be found that does not involve our works before God;hence the necessity of justification by faith. For Calvin, the person who is justified by faith is he who,excluded from the righteousness of works, grasps the righteousness of Christ through faith, and clothed init, appears in Gods sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man.109 Justification by faith consists in theremission of sins and the imputation of Christs righteousness.110On the question as to what constitutes faith, Victor Shepherds finding that faith in Calvins thinking isprimarily a knowledge of Gods mercy in Jesus Christ but which includes the other aspects of Gods wordunder the divine promise of mercy is corroborated by the evidence in Calvins Institutes.111 SummarizingCalvins discussion in the Institutes, 3.2.1-43, faith is defined as a knowledge of Gods will towards us,perceived from his Word.112 But what, strictly speaking, is it that faith knows about Gods will? Calvinidentifies Gods benevolence or . . . mercy as the core epistemological component of faith.113 Thus, faith isultimately a firm and certain knowledge of Gods benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of thefreely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the HolySpirit.114 Faith is, in effect, a sure confidence in divine benevolence and salvation.115 Even though the

knowledge of Gods mercy or the freely given promise of God is the core or the foundation of faith, Calvindenies that the knowledge of Gods mercy is the only component of faith.116 Faith is [also being] certainthat God is true in all things whether he command or forbid, whether he promise or threaten; and it alsoobediently receives his commandments, observes his prohibitions, heeds his threats. Nevertheless, faithproperly begins with the promise, rests in it, and ends in it.117 Calvins reason for emphasizing the promiseof mercy is because life [can] not be found in commandments or declarations of penalties.118 [A]conditional promise that sends us back to our own works cannot give life.119 Thus, for Calvin, faith issupremely the knowledge of Gods mercy in Christ as made known through Gods word.

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 163 . Justification by works. Calvin speaks of justification by works on two levels: where righteousness isdefined absolutely, there only exists a hypothetical doctrine of justification by works for sinful human beings.But where the righteousness of individuals is viewed in the context of justification by faith already applied,then a legitimate but subordinate doctrine of justification by works emerges.On the level of absolute righteousness, Calvin teaches that a person is justified by works if in his life therecan be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if bythe perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice.120 In other words, absoluterighteousness is the necessary condition for a person to be justified by works. Given the fact, however, thatall human beings (apart from Christ) commit sin, then it follows that the doctrine of justification by workscannot help the mass of humanity.121It is to be noted, however, that Calvins system of theology does not simply contain a hypothetical doctrine ofjustification by works on condition of absolute righteousness. It is significant that Calvin observes that it isone thing to discuss what value works have of themselves, another, to weigh in what place they are to beheld after faith righteousness has been established.122 In Calvins thinking, the fact that we . . . receive adouble grace through union with Christ through faith (i.e., reconciliation and regeneration) means that thegood works of believers are also imputed to them as righteousness.123 Even though the idea of a legitimatedoctrine of the imputation of a believers good works as righteousness is viewed by some Reformedscholars as heretical, Calvin clearly believed in such a concept:

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

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

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 17That is to say, because justification by faith is true, then a gracious justification by works is also true, or asCalvin puts it: works righteousness . . . depends upon the justification of faith.125 Thus, it follows fromjustification of faith that works otherwise impure, unclean, half done, unworthy of Gods sight, not to mentionhis love, are accounted [i.e., imputed as] righteousness.126 At the same time, however, this legitimatedoctrine of justification by works is to be subordinated to the logically prior truth of justification by faith. AsCalvin states: Works righteousness . . . depends upon faith and free justification, and is effected by thisand ought to . . . be subordinated to [faith] . . . as effect to cause.127The picture that emerges from Calvins commentaries confirms his teaching in the Institutes. Two exampleswill suffice at this point. Commenting on Luke 1:6, Calvin says that the righteousness of works flows from

the righteousness of faith and should be dependent and secondary to it, that is, subordinated . . . so asnot to conflict with the [righteousness of faith].128 The second example concerns 1 John 2:17, where Calvinsays, The will of God is first shown to us in the Law. But as no one satisfies the Law, no happiness can behoped for from it. But Christ meets the despairing with a new aid, for He not only regenerates us by HisSpirit so that we may obey God, but also brings it to pass that our endeavour, of whatever kind, obtains thepraise of perfect righteousness.129 There is, therefore, in Calvin a legitimate doctrine of justification byworks that is subordinate to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.130The significance of the truth of this subordinate doctrine of justification by works in Calvins system is thatthe doctrine of justification by faith alone does not nullify the promises of the law or render them fruitless.131Calvin argues that the promises of the law are in a sense abolished when considered in themselves; butwhen they are substituted by the promises of the gospel . . . which proclaim the free forgiveness of sins,these latter promises not only make us acceptable to God but also render our works pleasing to him; andthus the Lord also extends to [our works] the blessings which under the covenant were owed to theobservance of his law.132 In this way, what the Lord

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 18has promised in his law to the keepers of righteousness and holiness is paid to the works of believers.133 Itis also for this reason that Calvin can go so far as to speak of works as inferior causes of salvation, in thesense that the Lord ordinarily brings the elect into possession of the inheritance of eternal life . . . by meansof good works.134In a nutshell, Calvins view is that the unattainable absolute righteousness of works forces everyone to fleeto the absolute righteousness of Christ through faith, which in turn enables the original doctrine ofjustification by means of the works of the law to have validity for the believer. Therefore Calvin can say: Lethim . . . who so wishes enlarge upon the recompense said to await the keeper of the law, provided he at thesame time ponder that our depravity makes us experience no benefit therefrom until we have obtainedanother righteousness from faith.135 No matter what weaknesses there may be with this theologicalconstruction, it should nevertheless be acknowledged that Calvins understanding of justification representsa remarkable synthesis of biblical teaching.136

III. ConclusionCalvins teaching on the concept of righteousness in the 1559 edition of the Institutes and in hiscommentaries is rather complex, but a number of conclusions can be made on the basis of the evidencepresented above. Reflecting a Ciceronian definition of iustitia, the ideas of justice and equity are frequentlyin Calvins mind when he speaks about righteousness. More importantly, however, Calvin definesrighteousness in terms of Gods will as revealed through his law. In this regard, the concepts ofrighteousness as perfect uprightness and righteousness as a relative holiness co-operate in the experienceof the believer, although the latter is clearly subordinate to the former. The teaching on righteousness thatappears in Calvins Institutes and commentaries is thoroughly consistent, therefore, with Calvinsexplanation of the concept of the righteousness of obedience to the law that appears in Ezek 18.Furthermore, the evidence cited above corroborates Lillbacks opinion that Calvin taught a subordinate[works] righteousness . . . that is imputed to the believers works, which operates in tandem with justificationby faith alone.137 Those who assert

WTJ 71:1 (Spring 2009) p. 19that Lillback makes Calvin teach the heresy of justification by faith and works have missed the point ofLillbacks observation and, more importantly, have failed to understand Calvins teaching on this matter. It istrue that Calvin strongly rejects a doctrine of justification involving an admixture of faith and works, but theevidence cited above proves that Calvin did teach a doctrine of justification that operates on two levels. InCalvins thinking, justification by faith alone operates on the level of absolute righteousness, and justification

by works on the level of Gods gracious covenant. Those who deny that Calvin taught a subordinate andlegitimate doctrine of justification by works have arguably not understood the genius of Calvins teaching onthis issue.1

See Steven R. Coxhead, John Calvins Interpretation of Works Righteousness in Ezekiel 18, WTJ 70(2008): 303-16.2

Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvins Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (GrandRapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 188-89; see also p. 205.3

David J. Engelsma, The Recent Bondage of John Calvin: A Critique of Peter A. Lillbacks The Binding ofGod, Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 35 (November 2001): n.p., Online: http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2001.html#ReviewArticle (accessed 17 January 2008).4

Mark W. Karlberg, Gospel Grace: The Modern-Day Controversy (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 219-20.5

Calvins understanding of righteousness as it applies to God is not in focus in this article, but it is importantto note that Calvin believed that God is the fountainhead of all righteousness ( John Calvin, Institutes ofthe Christian Religion [ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster,1960], 1:530 [2.17.2]. All quotations from Calvins Institutes in this article will be from the Battles translationunless specified otherwise.) The concept iustitia Dei has three basic meanings in Calvins thinking. Firstly, itcan denote the righteousness of God himself either in his spotless character(Inst. 1:783 [3.14.16]), or asrevealed through the blamelessness of his actions (Inst. 1:311 [2.4.2]), or in the sense of his faithfulnessand mercy which he shows in defending and preserving his people (e.g., John Calvin, Commentary on theBook of Psalms [trans. James Anderson; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948], 1:59; see also Psalms,1:92, 389, 499; 2:13, 229-30, 302-3; 3:90, 93), or Gods just government of the world (Psalms, 1:159, 169;2:9-10). Secondly, it can denote the standard of perfection that is alone acceptable to God (Inst. 1:354[2.7.6]; and also 1:265 [2.2.8]; 1:340 [2.5.19]; 1:736 [3.11.9]; 1:756 [3.12.2]), to which believers areconformed in the process of spiritual renewal (Inst. 1:601 [3.3.9]; 1:684 [3.6.1]). Thirdly, it can denote thepurity of Christ (Inst. 1:730 [3.11.5]), in which believers are clothed (Inst. 1:508 [2.16.5]; 1:510 [2.16.6];1:742 [3.11.12]; 1:753 [3.11.23]). In addition, iustitia Dei can be understood in a number of derivative orcombined senses: the righteousness that is bestowed upon believers, of which God is the author (Inst.1:736 [3.11.9]); Gods righteous character and his work of justifying believers (Inst. 1:763 [3.13.1]); Godsrighteous standard of morality as revealed in his law (Psalms, 4:430, 456-57; 5:21-22, 35, 40); or eventheholiness manifested in the life that is so well-pleasing to [God] (Psalms, 3:73).6

These meanings of iustitia are cited from Collins Latin Dictionary Plus Grammar (Glasgow: Harper Collins,1997), 120.7

Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Doctrine of Justification (3d ed.; Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005), 7.8

Ibid., 16.9

Ibid. McGrath cites D. H. van Zyl, Justice and Equity in Cicero (Pretoria, S.A.: Academica Press, 1991), asevidence for Ciceros view of iustitia (Iustitia Dei, 16). He also quotes from Cicero himself: Iustitia virtus est,communi utilitate servata, suam cuique tribuens dignitatem (ibid.). According to Braden J. Hosch, the so-called Ciceronian definition of iustitia actually goes back to Simonides (Hosch, Truth in Our Practice:Representing Justice in Miltons Poetry and Prose [Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2003], 45).Simonides definition of justice appears in Plato, Resp. 1.331d332c, in Socrates discussion withPolemarchus: (Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes [LCL;ed. G. P. Goold et al.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978], 5:20 [1.331e]).10

McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 17.11

Inst. 2:1497 (4.20.9). The Latin reads: Iustitia quidem est, innocentes in fidem suscipere, complecti, tueri,vindicare, liberare ( John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis cum brevi Annotatione atque Indicibuslocupletissimis ad Editionem Amstelodamensem accuratissime exscribi curavit A. Tholuck [Berlin: GustafEichler, 1834], 2:482).12

Inst. 1:692 (3.7.3): Iustitia autem omnia aequitatis officia complectitur, ut reddatur unicuique quod suumest (Institutio, 1:446). Other places in the Institutes where iustitia and aequitas are closely linked includesections 3.14.2 and 4.20.9, 15.13

John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (trans. John King; 2 vols.; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 1:482.14

Ibid.15

Ibid.16

Psalms, 1:206.17

Ibid., 2:179.18

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (trans. John Owen; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1948), 3:343.19

John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans.Thomas Myers; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 1:268; 2:83.20

Ezekiel , 2:220.21

Inst. 1:417 (2.8.53): in Lege nobis tantum praescribi iuris et aequitatis inter homines observantiam(Institutio, 1:272).22

Inst. 1:416 (2.8.52): For almost every time the prophets exhort men to repentance they omit the First

Table, and urge faith, judgment, mercy, and equityNam fere quoties hortantur ad poenitentiam, omissapriore tabula, fidem, iudicium, misericordiam et aequitatem urgent (Institutio, 1:272).23

John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (trans. William Pringle; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1947), 4:175-76.24

John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke (Calvins New Testament Commentaries1-3; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. A. W. Morrison and T. H. L. Parker; 3 vols.;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 1:48.25

Inst. 1:377 (2.8.11): Principium ergo et fundamentum iustitiae vocamus Dei cultum (Institutio, 1:246).26

Inst. 1:599-600 (3.3.7): praecipua iustitiae pars est, suum ius et honorem Deo reddere, quo impiefraudatur, ubi nobis propositum non est, subiicere nos eius imperio (Institutio, 1:388).27

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony(Calvins Commentaries 2-3; trans. Charles William Bingham; 4 vols; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 1:363.28

For equity as fairness in justice, see Inst. 2.8.19; 3.23.9; 4.20.4.29

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1970), 2:38 (3.11.3): acquirere iustitiam recte agendo (Institutio, 2:7).30

Ezekiel, 1:315.31

Inst. 1:422 (2.8.59).32

Ibid., 1:372 (2.8.5): Legem nobis esse divinitus traditam, quae nos perfectam iustitiam edoceret: illic nonaliam iustitiam doceri, nisi quae ad praescriptum divinae voluntatis exigatur (Institutio, 1:242).33

Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7): Ut dem Legis praecepta vocari iustitias, nihil mirum and iustitiae sunt singula eiusmandata (Institutio, 2:59).34

Inst. 2:1267 (4.13.13): in se contineat Lex perfectam iustitiam and [Lex est] perfectae iustitiae doctrina(Institutio, 2:344).35

Psalms, 5:22.36

Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7).37

The Last Four Books of Moses, 1:363.38

Psalms, 5:22.39

Inst. 1:809 (3.17.7): At vero plus longe difficultatis esse videtur in his locis, qui et bona opera iustitiae tituloinsigniunt, et hominem illis asserunt iustificari. Plurimi sunt prioris generis, ubi mandatorum observationes,iustificationes vocantur seu iustitiae (Institutio, 2:58).40

Harmony of the Gospels , 1:130.41

Inst. 1:246 (2.1.4): nihil melius esse, quam Dei mandatis parendo colere iustitiam (Institutio, 1:166).42

The phrase perfect obedience , which appears as either perfecta obedientia or absoluta obedientia in theLatin, is found in sections 2.7.3-4; 3.14.11; 3.17.7; 3.18.10; and 4.13.6, 13 of the Institutes.43

The phrase the complete observance of the law , i.e., absoluta observatio, is found in Inst. 2.7.3.44

Inst. 1:780 (3.14.13): Toties testificatur Dominus nullam se agnoscere operum iustitiam, nisi in perfectaLegis suae observatione (Institutio, 2:39).45

Inst. 1:351 (2.7.3): Si verum est perfectionem iustitiae in Lege nos edoceri: istud etiam con-sequitur,absolutam eius observationem perfectam esse coram Deo iustitiam (Institutio, 1:230).46

Inst. 1:780 (3.14.13): non alia iustitia admittitur in coelis quam integra Legis observatio (Institutio, 2:39).47

Inst. 1:777 (3.14.10): etiamsi fieri posset, ut aliqua nobis essent omnino pura absolutaque opera, unumtamen peccatum satis est ad delendam exstinguendamque omnem memoriam prioris iustitiae (Institutio,2:37).48

Inst. 1:777 (3.14.10): Lex . . . mortem ac iudicium omnibus denuntiet, qui non integram iustitiam operepraestiterint (Institutio, 2:38).49

Inst. (trans. Beveridge), 1:302 (2.7.3): Nec refragari licet, quin iustam Legis obedientiam maneat aeternaesalutis remuneratio, quemadmodum a Domino promissa est (Institutio, 1:230).50

Inst. 1:352 (2.7.4): promissiones Legis, quatenus conditionales sunt a perfecta Legis obedientiadepende[nt] (Institutio, 1:230).51

Inst. 1:357 (2.7.8): Deus enim in Legis praeceptis nonnisi perfectae iustitiae . . . remunerator (Institutio,1:233).52

Absolute righteousness is prescribed in the law ( John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to theRomans and to the Thessalonians [Calvins New Testament Commentaries 8; ed. David W. Torrance andThomas F. Torrance; trans. Ross Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], 47).

53

John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians(Calvins New Testament Commentaries 11; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. T. H. L.Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 55.54

Romans, 47.55

Ibid., 87.56

Galatians, 54, 51.57

Ibid., 38.58

John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles (Calvins New Testament Commentaries 6-7; ed. David W. Torranceand Thomas F. Torrance; trans. John W. Fraser and W. J. G. McDonald; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977),2:40.59

Romans, 130.60

Last Four Books of Moses , 1:313.61

Ibid.62

Ibid., 3:262. This conclusion is not controversial, but it confirms Lillbacks observation that, for Calvin, thecondition of the covenant from the human side is perfect obedience (Lillback, The Binding of God , 186).63

Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7): Fatemur ergo libenter, absolutam Legis obedientiam esse iustitiam (Institutio, 2:59).64

Inst. 1:810 (3.17.7): Sed exstare usquam talem iustitiae formam negamus. Atque ideo Legis iustitiamtollimus, non quod manca per se sit ac mutila: sed quod ob carnis nostrae debilitatem nusquam compareat(Institutio, 2:59).65

Inst. 1:351-52 (2.7.3).66

Ibid., 1:352 (2.7.3): Legis imbecillitas se profert: nam quia in nullo nostrum illa Legis observantiadeprehenditur, a vitae promissionibus exclusi in solam maledictionem recidimus (Institutio, 1:230).67

Inst. 1:352 (2.7.3): quum enim longe supra humanam facultatem sit Legis doctrina, potest quidem homoeminus spectare appositas promissiones, non tamen fructum ex iis aliquem colligere (Institutio, 1:230).68

Inst. 1:747 (3.11.17): quia nemo est qui impleat, non tantum ex vulgo, sed ex perfectissimis quibusque

(Institutio, 2:18).69

Inst. 1:777 (3.14.10).70

Ibid., 1:353-54 (2.7.5).71

Last Four Books of Moses, 1:414.72

Minor Prophets, 4:80.73

A Harmony of the Gospels, 3:35.74

Acts, 2:37.75

Romans, 47.76

Galatians, 54-55.77

Ezekiel, 2:236.78

Inst. 1:803 (3.17.1): Non enim promittit Dominus quippiam, nisi perfectis Legis suae cultoribus, qualis nemoreperitur (Institutio, 2:55).79

Inst. 1:807-8 (3.17.5): non sine causa dicitur illi placere fidelium vita, ad sanctitatem et iustitiamcomposita.... Siquidem ut in omnibus misericordiae suae pactis integritatem ac sanctimoniam vitae vicissima servis suis Deus stipulatur...ne ludibrio sit sua bonitas (Institutio, 2:57).80

Inst. 1:809 (3.17.6): Ne ergo ipsi adoptionis iure nos abdicemus, huc semper enitendum, quo tendit nostravocatio (Institutio, 2:58).81

Inst. 1:814 (3.17.10):Multo iam minus rationis est, cur nos conturbare debeat appellatio iustorum, quaefidelibus plerumque tribuitur. Iustos certe a vitae sanctimonia nuncupari fateor: sed quum in iustitiae studiummagis incumbant quam iustitiam ipsam impleant, qualemcunque hanc iustitiam, fidei iustificatione cederepar est (Institutio, 2:61).82

Inst. 1:820 (3.17.15): Neque interim negamus quin fidelibus sua integritas, dimidiata licet ac imperfecta,gradus sit ad immortalitatem (Institutio, 2:65).83

Inst. 1:787 (3.14.21).84

Ibid., 1:829 (3.18.7): Semper meminerimus, hanc promissionem . . . nihil fructus nobis allaturam, nisi

praecederet gratuitum misericordiae foedus, cui tota salutis nostrae certitudo incumberet. Eo autem freti,confidere secure debemus, obsequiis etiam nostris quamlibet indignis non defuturum a Dei liberalitatepraemium (Institutio, 2:71).85

Inst. 1:829 (3.18.7): Iustitia igitur ista magis ad divinae promissionis veritatem, quam ad reddendam debitiaequitatem refertur (Institutio, 2:71).86

Genesis, 1:251.87

Ibid., 1:251-52.88

Ibid., 1:252.89

Ezekiel , 2:74.90

Ibid.91

Harmony of the Gospels , 1:6.92

Ibid., 1:7.93

Ibid., 1:6.94

Ibid.95

John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter(Calvins New Testament Commentaries 12; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. WilliamB. Johnston; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 312.96

John Calvin, The Gospel according to St John 11-21 and The First Epistle of John (Calvins NewTestament Commentaries 5; ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; trans. T. H. L. Parker; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 238.97

The First Epistle of John , 238.98

Ibid., 255.99

Romans, 86 (my emphasis).100

McGrath, Iustitia Dei , 6.101

Inst. 1:726 (3.11.2).102

Ibid., 1:728 (3.11.3).103

Ibid., 1:726 (3.11.2).104

Ibid., 1:727 (3.11.2).105

Institutio, 2:6 (3.11.2).106

Inst. 1:728-29 (3.11.4). The terms that Calvin uses in the Latin are acceptio and iustitiae imputatio (Institutio,2:7).107

Inst. (trans. Beveridge), 2:37 (3.11.1).108

Galatians, 38.109

Inst. 1:726-27 (3.11.2).110

Ibid., 1:727 (3.11.2).111

Victor A. Shepherd, The Nature and Function of Faith in the Theology of John Calvin (National Associationof Baptist Professors of Religion Dissertation Series 2; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983), 10, 14-16.112

Inst. 1:549 (3.2.6).113

Ibid., 1:550 (3.2.7): i.e., Gods benevolentia and misericordia (Institutio, 1:357).114

Inst. 1:551 (3.2.7).115

Ibid., 1:561 (3.2.15).116

Ibid., 1:575 (3.2.29).117

Ibid.118

Ibid.119

Ibid.

120

Inst. (trans. Beveridge), 2:38 (3.11.2).121

Inst. 1:802-6 (3.17.1-3).122

Ibid., 1:811 (3.17.8) (my emphasis): Sed aliud est disputare, quid per se valeant opera, aliud quo loco poststabilitam fidei iustitiam habenda sint (Institutio, 2:59).123

The quotation is from Inst. 1:725 (3.11.1): [Christi] participatione duplicem potissimum gratiam recipiamus(Institutio, 2:6). Calvins discussion of the legitimate biblical doctrine of works righteousness is found insections 3.17.8-10 of the 1559 edition of the Institutes.124

Inst. 1:811-12 (3.17.8) (my emphasis): Praeposita peccatorum remissione, quae iam sequuntur bonaopera aliam quam a suo merito aestimationem habent: quia quicquid in illis est imperfectum, Christiperfectione contegitur.... Obliterata igitur omnium transgressionum culpa, quibus impediuntur homines nequicquam Deo gratum proferant, sepulto etiam imperfectionis vitio, quod bona quoque opera foedare solet:quae fiunt a fidelibus bona opera, iusta censentur, vel (quod idem est) in iustitiam imputantur (Institutio,2:60).125

Inst. 1:812 (3.17.9): si a fidei iustificatione dependet qualiscunque tandem censetur operum iustitia, nonmodo per hanc nihil imminui, sed potius confirmari (Institutio, 2:60).126

Inst. 1:812 (3.17.9): Quodsi constat a iustificatione fidei proficisci, ut opera impura alioqui, immunda,dimidiata, indigna Dei conspectu, nedum amore, iustitiae imputentur (Institutio, 2:60). In the context, thesubjunctive flavor of this protasis speaks of a real condition.127

Inst. 1:813 (3.17.10): Iam si ista qualiscunque operum iustitia a fide et gratuita iustificatione pendet, et abea efficitur: debet sub ea includi, et tanquam effectus causae suae (ut ita loquar) subordinari (Institutio,2:61).128

Harmony of the Gospels, 1:7.129

The First Epistle of John, 255.130

This teaching is commonly known as double justification. That Calvin taught a doctrine of double justificationis acknowledged by T. H. L. Parker and Anthony Lane, among others. See T. H. L. Parker, CalvinsDoctrine of Justification, EvQ 24 (1952): 105; and A. N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 33-36.131

Inst. 1:804-5 (3.17.2-3).132

Ibid., 1:805 (3.17.3): si [promissiones Legis] in se considerentur, quodammodo aboleri.... Sed dumpromissiones Evangelicae substituuntur, quae gratuitam peccatorum remissionem denuntiant, non efficiunt

modo ut ipsi Deo accepti simus, sed ut operibus quoque nostris sit sua gratia: neque hoc tantum, ut eaDominus grata habeat, sed benedictionibus etiam, quae ex pacto debebantur Legis suae observationi,prosequatur (Institutio, 2:55-56).133

Inst. 1:805 (3.17.3): Fateor ergo fidelium operibus rependi, quae iustitiae et sanctitatis cultoribus in Legesua Dominus promisit (Institutio, 2:56).134

Inst. 1:787 (3.14.21): i.e., causae inferiors (Institutio, 2:43-44).135

Inst. 1:804 (3.17.2) (my emphasis).136

It is possible to argue, for example, that Calvins concept of nuda lex is problematic in that it abstractsMosaic and Messianic law from its gracious covenantal context. Calvins understanding of justification byfaith and justification by works as being abstract principles that operate in parallel throughout salvationhistory is also problematic from the perspective of those who argue that the Pauline distinction betweenthese two forms of justification is strictly salvation historical or covenantal in nature, corresponding to thedistinction between the old and new covenants.137

Lillback, The Binding of God, 185-93, 205.current : : uid:851 (institution)