Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #3

Matthew 19:16-21 (Rich Young Ruler) 

On 10-8-24, I published my article, Bible vs. “Faith Alone”: 100 Proofs (100 Bible Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, and Faith + Works [from 22 out of 27 NT Books]: All Disproving Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology). Later, I got the idea of inquiring as to how John Calvin (1509-1564), one of the two the most influential founders of Protestantism, along with Martin Luther, would react to these passages in his Commentaries (and then offering my rebuttals). My approach here will be the same as in my book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (Aug. 2004). I explain my method in that book’s Introduction:

I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, overpolemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism’s most distinctive doctrines. . . .

I will assert – with all due respect and, I hope, with a minimum of “triumphalism” — the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and will submit the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives.

The dates of Calvin’s various Commentaries are as follows:

1540 Romans
1548 All the Epistles of Paul
1551 Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter, John, Jude, and James
1551 Isaiah
1552 Acts of the Apostles
1554 Genesis
1557 Psalms
1557 Hosea
1559 Twelve Minor Prophets
1561 Daniel
1562 Joshua
1563 Harmony of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
1563 Jeremiah
1563 Harmony of Three Gospels and Commentary on St John

I use RSV for biblical citations. Calvin’s words will be in blue.

A complete listing of this series will be on my web page, John Calvin: Catholic Appraisal, under the subtitle: “Bible vs. ‘Faith Alone’ vs. John Calvin”.

*****

Matthew 19:16-17, 20-21 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “. . . If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” . . . [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

A blind confidence in his works hindered him from profiting under Christ, to whom, in other respects, he wished to be submissive. Thus, in our own day, we find some who are not ill-disposed, but who, under the influence of I know not what shadowy holiness, hardly relish the doctrine of the Gospel.

I see no “blind confidence in . . . works” in the passage. He asked sincerely how one achieved eternal life, assuming that a “good deed” would accomplish it. Jesus didn’t rebuke his confidence in the notion that a good man must do good works (since the Old Testament is chock-full of such injunctions); far from it, He reinforced his line of questioning and train of thought by asking whether he kept the commandments. That’s what Jesus thought was the “road” to salvation. He didn’t challenge him by asking, “why do you ask me about works? Don’t you know that they have nothing to do with salvation and are done only in gratefulness to God for a salvation already attained?” The text is massively contrary to Protestantism’s faith alone.

Asked by the man what he still lacked, Jesus said that it was the willingness to sell all that he owned (i.e., another work; not an exhortation to faith and assenting belief). Thus, the rich young ruler’s rejection of Jesus’ advice wasn’t based on “blind confidence” in his works, but rather, on the unwillingness to do one extraordinary work that Jesus said would save him. His fatal flaw was placing possessions above allegiance to God (a form of idolatry). Nothing here upholds faith alone at all. A theoretical Protestant who hypothetically was writing part of the Bible, could never have written the passage this way. Jesus twice emphasizes that works save a soul; never mentioning faith or belief in Himself (though those things are also true and necessary). The point is that Jesus highlighted that which Protestants falsely claim has nothing to do with salvation. How can this be? Well, we’ll see what else Calvin says about it.

But, in order to form a more correct judgment of the meaning of the answer, we must attend to the form of the question. He does not simply ask how and by what means he shall reach life, but what good thing he shall do, in order to obtain it. He therefore dreams of merits, on account of which he may receive eternal life as a reward due; and therefore Christ appropriately sends him to the keeping of the law, which unquestionably is the way of life, . . . 

This is beyond silly, and is special pleading. If the man assumed some doctrine of meritorious works, Jesus certainly didn’t disabuse him of what Protestants think is a false notion by inquiring if he kept the commandments, did He? Again, He would have had to make the “elementary” point that works have nothing to do with salvation. But He didn’t, because it would be a falsehood. If Jesus sent him to the law, and the law had nothing to do with salvation, this would be unjust and wrong. He would be deceiving him. Yet Calvin, not grasping this point, dumbfoundedly thinks it is “appropriate” that Jesus directed Him there, and not to faith.

Keep the commandments. This passage was erroneously interpreted by some of the ancients, whom the Papists have followed, as if Christ taught that, by keeping the law, we may merit eternal life.

That’s exactly what it teaches. Asked what achieves eternal life, Jesus replies with an inquiry as to whether he kept the commandments. It couldn’t be more clear than it is. Then when the man confirmed that he had done so, Jesus required another work (giving away all he had).

As we are all destitute of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23,) nothing but cursing will be found in the law; and nothing remains for us but to betake ourselves to the undeserved gift of righteousness.

Then why didn’t Jesus make precisely this same point, if it’s the bottom line? That’s the essence of discussion on this passage. Why in the world — presupposing faith alone soteriology for the sake of argument — didn’t Jesus do that? I have addressed Romans 3:23 elsewhere. Calvin thinks in this way, but Jesus expresses nothing whatever in this exchange that would suggest any agreement on His part.

And therefore Paul lays down a twofold righteousness, the righteousness of the law, (Romans 10:5,) and the righteousness of faith, (Romans 10:6.) He makes the first to consist in works, and the second, in the free grace of Christ.

And Calvin pits the two against each other, as if they are antithetical. Paul, on the other hand,  doesn’t do that. He expressly connected works to salvation twice in the same epistle, and in three others:

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; [13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

*

Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, [24] knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward;

Hence we infer, that this reply of Christ is legal, because it was proper that the young man who inquired about the righteousness of works should first be taught that no man is accounted righteous before God unless he has fulfilled the law, (which is impossible,) that, convinced of his weakness, he might betake himself to the assistance of faith. 

Giving away all that he owned implicitly would require faith, for sure, but it was also a meritorious work, since Jesus said that doing it would bring him eternal life. So Jesus taught that works can save, then He taught that an extraordinary work that would require a lot of faith would ultimately save, in the case of this man (it’s nowhere taught that it’s required of every man). He never gets to a faith alone explanation of salvation, and remember, the question was about how one gains eternal life.

Neither scenario is true, according to Protestants, who deny that works have anything directly to do with salvation. So why does Jesus assert twice that they do? He is teaching false doctrine: so consistent Protestants must say. Since that is clearly impossible, we must throw out faith alone rather than reject our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a false teacher and false prophet. This is perhaps the clearest rejection of faith alone in the New Testament. It’s unanswerable, and a fatal blow to the false doctrine in and of itself.

When Paul says, that the doers of the law are justified, (Romans 2:13,) he excludes all from the righteousness of the law.

Huh? How is it that Calvin can turn upside down a clear saying of Paul, and not feel in the least conflicted about it? This is one utterly confused man. Jesus said basically the same thing as Paul:

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . .

St. John concurs:

Revelation 20:12-13 . . . And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. [13] . . . and all were judged by what they had done.

Many Protestants want to flip this around, too, and fundamentally change its meaning, and teach that one can simply say “Lord, Lord” in the sinner’s prayer or suchlike, get justified for all time in one second as a result (which justification Calvinists assert can never be lost: which most Protestants do not believe), and deny any necessity for good works in connection with ultimate salvation, which contradicts at least a hundred Bible passages.

This passage sets aside all the inventions which the Papists have contrived in order to obtain salvation.

I don’t see how. I think it sets aside all the inventions that Protestants have contrived with regard to a vastly unbiblical “workless” salvation.

For not only are they mistaken in wishing to lay God under obligation to them by their good works, to bestow salvation as a debt

God is never under any obligation or “debt” to us, strictly speaking. But He chooses to mercifully grant merit to us as a reward insofar as we follow His will, by His grace and power. His works become our own:

1 Corinthians 15:10, 58 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. . . . [58] . . . be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

Philippians 2:13 . . . God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

It’s like a parent teaching a small child to read. The child then learns and reads something, and is rewarded by the parent. Was that the parent’s work or the child’s? Of course it is both. It’s a false dichotomy to deny that. The child didn’t generate the ability to read by himself or herself. Rather, it was a joint effort: ultimately brought about and caused by the parent, but the child also worked and was rewarded for the work that was only made possible in the first place by the parent. That’s God and us, and it’s why we can obtain merit for our good works and reward for same: up to and including salvation itself: so the Bible repeatedly teaches.

let every man who endeavors to regulate his life by obedience to Christ direct his whole attention to keep the commandments of the law.

Yes, let them do so. And let them understand that this is tied to salvation in the Bible. Calvin denies it, but he can’t overcome or overthrow all of the abundant biblical data.

The law must have been dead to him, when he vainly imagined that he was so righteous; for if he had not flattered himself through hypocrisy, it was an excellent advice to him to learn humility, to contemplate his spots and blemishes in the mirror of the law. But, intoxicated with foolish confidence, he fearlessly boasts that he has discharged his duty properly from his childhood.

Again, there is no textual evidence in the passage suggesting all of this, which is Calvin’s imagining and superimposition only. If he was in fact a rank hypocrite, Jesus (knowing all things, including this man’s thoughts and life) would have surely pointed it out to him, and rebuked it, just as He often did with the Pharisees. Instead, he accepts his word that he had observed the commandments from his youth (implying that he indeed had done so), and then strongly implied that his remaining sin, keeping him from salvation, was pride of possessions, or the idolatry of placing them above a full heartfelt obedience to God.

That’s a serious sin, too, without question, but it’s a different one from what Calvin dreams up, with no textual support; hence only a statement of his prior presupposition and therefore, eisegesis (i.e., improperly reading into a biblical text what isn’t there). Calvin believes that no one can ever possibly adequately observe the Mosaic Law. Jesus seems to think that this man did. Giving away all we have is not part of the Mosaic Law, as far as I know.

Calvin agrees in this section, writing, “I confess that we are nowhere commanded in the law to sell all.”  So that was a separate issue, distinct from questions of Law-observance. The man asked Jesus what it was that he still lacked. If it were imperfect observance of the law, Jesus would have told him so, because that, too, would have been a thing that he lacked or fell short in fulfilling. But He didn’t. He moved onto a non-law consideration. Therefore, it logically follows that the man had indeed kept the law, as far as that goes: the very thing that Calvin vehemently denies (“if he had known himself thoroughly, as soon as he heard the mention of the law, he would have acknowledged that he was liable to the judgment of God”).

But if we are not prepared to endure poverty, it is manifest that covetousness reigns in us.

If it is expressly Gods will for us, yes. But it’s clearly not His will for most people. The Bible is not against rich men per se. Abraham and Joseph of Arimathea were rich men, without the slightest hint of condemnation in the Bible about their state. Calvin is too sweeping and legalistic. Anyone caring for a family has to be above the poverty level. That’s why, in the Catholic Church, when one wants to heroically renounce possessions and self-will, they are usually urged to be celibate, because such deprivations are much easier to undergo without a family to provide for. Jesus refers to His disciples leaving families, even wives, to follow Him. And in so doing, He said that they would receive eternal life as the reward.

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Anonymous Dutch portrait of John Calvin, c. 1550 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series examining how John Calvin (1509-1564) exegeted biblical passages in his Commentaries that (in my opinion) refute the novel Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”.