Bible vs. “Faith Alone” vs. John Calvin #5

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”.

*****

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”]

Some do read it falsely in one text, among those who are sanctified by faith, because this word is extended unto the whole period. Therefore, the meaning thereof is, that by faith we come unto the possession of all those good things which are offered by the gospel. And faith is properly directed unto Christ because all the parts of our salvation are included in him.

True to form, Calvin skips over the main striking point: “sanctified by faith in me.” In other words, the same faith that brings about justification includes sanctification at the same time. In exercising faith, we are sanctified: the very thing that Calvin and Protestants generally try to make out is completely separate from justification. It’s impossible to do because this passage and Romans 6:22 (“. . . sanctification and its end, eternal life”) organically connect the two in a way that is rather difficult to explain away. Thus, since sophistry wouldn’t explain away this passage, Calvin opted for his other frequent dubious method: ignoring the obviously “Catholic” implications of it.

Romans 2:6-10 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

There is not so much difficulty in this verse [2:6], as it is commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the reprobate with just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have deserved: and as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any merit: nor can this be proved from this verse; for though it declares what reward good works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are worth, or what price is due to them. And it is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from reward.

But this completely ignores — with boilerplate rhetoric –, the entire thrust of 2:6 combined with 2:7: where “well-doing” is assumed to be a cause of  “eternal life”: a thing that simply can’t be in Calvin’s soteriology, because it would entail the dreaded, despised merit.

And when he says, that the faithful, by continuing in good works, seek glory and honour, he does not mean that they aspire after any thing else but the favor of God, or that they strive to attain any thing higher, or more excellent: but they can not seek him, without striving, at the same time, for the blessedness of his kingdom, the description of which is contained in the paraphrase given in these words. The meaning then is, — that the Lord will give eternal life to those who, by attention to good works, strive to attain immortality. 

Here, Calvin is essentially making our argument for us, since he seems to be saying that good works and striving have to do with immortality (i.e., justification and salvation). But that’s our view, so he appears to be internally incoherent and inconsistent, which is not all that uncommon in Calvin, though much less so than with Luther.

Calvin then completely skips over v. 10. I guess I would, too, if I held his view, since Paul is saying that salvation comes to “every one who does good” as opposed to everyone having faith alone in Jesus.

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

How does Calvin attempt to explain away such a clear “Catholic” verse? He does so by eisegesis (reading into it what isn’t there) and sophistry:

They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law. 

In my opinion, this is obviously self-refuting. He’s not dealing straightforwardly with the text, because if he did, he’d be unable to avoid to a “Catholic” conclusion, and he can never do that, so . . .

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

We now gather the fruit of righteousness, even holiness; we hope in future to gain eternal life. These things, unless we are beyond measure stupid, ought to generate in our minds a hatred and horror of sin, and also a love and desire for righteousness. Some render τελος, “tribute” or reward, and not “end,” but not, as I think, according to the meaning of the Apostle; for though it is true that we bear the punishment of death on account of sin, yet this word is not suitable to the other clause, to which it is applied by Paul, inasmuch as life cannot be said to be the tribute or reward of righteousness.

Here he simply denies what the text says: a form of sophistry, especially in his last clause. It can’t be, so it isn’t, despite the fact that Holy Scripture plainly asserts it. Man-made tradition trumps God’s inspired, infallible revelation. What a cynical and sad view: to treat God’s Word in such a cavalier fashion.

Romans 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

This is a classic Hebraic, biblical “if . . . then” contract-like conditional: “if you do [bad thing] x, you’ll die, but if you do [good thing] y, you will live.” It’s undeniably direct causation. Here, a carnal, worldly life brings spiritual death, but a Spirit-filled life brings eternal life. This, of course, goes against the Calvinist doctrine that one is justified once-and-for all in one moment, by faith, and that, thereafter, good works, while beneficial and encouraged by Calvin, have nothing to do with salvation whatsoever. The problem is that the biblical text — like many others I have found — doesn’t read like one would expect it to read, were Calvin’s doctrine true. So let’s see how he tries to evade that fact.

He adds a threatening, in order more effectually to shake off their torpor; by which also they are fully confuted who boast of justification by faith without the Spirit of Christ, though they are more than sufficiently convicted by their own conscience; for there is no confidence in God, where there is no love of righteousness. It is indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone; but it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation. Let then the faithful learn to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he has been given to us for both these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by their mutilated faith.

What Calvin does is apply his doctrine of irresistible grace: those who are justified by faith will inevitably live righteous lives — in a broad sense — and are incapable of doing otherwise. This flies in the face, of course, of at least 150 Bible passages that explicitly describe true believers falling away (committing apostasy). That’s an awful lot of Scripture to have to rationalize away or ignore.

He [in 8:13b] . . . moderates his address, that he might not deject the minds of the godly, who are still conscious of much infirmity; for however we may as yet be exposed to sins, he nevertheless promises life to us, provided we strive to mortify the flesh: for he does not strictly require the destruction of the flesh, but only bids us to make every exertion to subdue its lusts.

This is deviously clever. Calvin invents a “saving distinction” not found in the text itself, by asserting that Paul doesn’t “require” a renunciation and resolve to “put to death the deeds of the body”; he only demands an “e for effort”: the good ol’ college try. Nice try at smuggling in a desperate eisegetical ploy. The passage, as already noted, makes a one-on-one causal scenario: far from being optional, denouncing sin is required for salvation. To make the point crystal-clear, St. Paul reiterates it four verses later, with a reversed “if then” (“then if”) condition:

Romans 8:17 . . . heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

If we “suffer with him” then we will be “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” and will be “glorified with him.” The suffering isn’t optional. This is one of the most ignored verses in the New Testament. It fits perfectly into Catholic soteriology and not at all into most Protestant — particularly Calvinist — versions.

It is however the design of Paul, as it will presently appear more fully, highly to extol this inheritance promised to us, that we may be contented with it, and manfully despise the allurements of the world, and patiently bear whatever troubles may press on us in this life.

But that’s not what Paul wrote. He wasn’t merely expressing the notion that we are “contented” with whatever struggles come our way, but rather, that the sufferings have a direct bearing on whether we will be saved and attain eternal life. Calvin sidesteps this crucial factor by ignoring it. It’s his “time-honored” method.

“God’s inheritance is ours, because we have by his grace been adopted as his children; and that it may not be doubtful, its possession as been already conferred on Christ, whose partners we are become: but Christ came to it by the cross; then we must come to it in the same manner.” Nor is that to be dreaded which some fear, that Paul thus ascribes the cause of our eternal glory to our labours; for this mode of speaking is not unusual in Scripture. He denotes the order, which the Lord follows in dispensing salvation to us, rather than the cause; for he has already sufficiently defended the gratuitous mercy of God against the merits of works. When now exhorting us to patience, he does not show whence salvation proceeds, but how God governs his people.

This is pure sophistry. Having basically explicated the actual meaning in the first part of his above statement, he then proceeds to explain it away as if it has no imperative importance, by drawing a sophistical and unbiblical dichotomy between “order” and “cause.” It won’t do. The text is too clear. It goes far beyond mere “order” or chronology, to causation. It’s not descriptive (what in fact happened), but prescriptive (what we ought to do).

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”

Calvin completely ignores, in his commentary on this passage, the aspect of “obeyed the gospel”: which conjoins faith and works in a way that he doesn’t like. Instead, he uses the passage as an opportunity to express his false doctrine of limited atonement. He doesn’t even attack universal atonement, but rather, universalism, which, of course, neither Catholics nor Orthodox, nor the great majority of Protestants who hold to universal atonement, believe:

It is hence evident, how foolishly some maintain, that all are indiscriminately the elect, because the doctrine of salvation is universal, and because God invites all indiscriminately to himself. But the generality of the promises does not alone and by itself make salvation common to all: on the contrary, the peculiar revelation, mentioned by the Prophet, confines it to the elect.

Fighting straw men, ignoring inspired revelation that he foolishly disagrees with, and topic-switching advance his own erroneous view not a whit.

Romans 16:26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith (cf. Heb 11:8-9: “By faith Abraham obeyed . . . he went out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, . . .”)

This merges faith with obedience or works, just as Romans 10:16 had done. Paul’s thought is unified and consistent. Calvin mentions the phrase “obedience of faith” but doesn’t analyze the implications of it. The editor of Calvin’s commentary on Romans draws a remarkable conclusion, in line with false elements of Calvin’s and Calvinist soteriology, by writing, “obedience to the gospel is faith in what it declares. To believe is the special command of the gospel: hence to believe is the special act of obedience that is required; and he who believes is he who shall be saved. But this faith is that of the heart, and not of the lips; and a faith which works by love and overcomes the world, the mighty power of which we learn from Hebrews 11.”

In this way, what Paul refers to when he refers to obedience, is simply obeying the command to believe in; have faith in Jesus and His death on our behalf; not any additional good works. It’s more sophistry and eisegesis. But at least Calvin himself was wise enough to not write such a silly thing (not in this place, anyway).

What would Calvin do with the related passage, Hebrews 11:8-9? It makes it clear that the obedience is not merely in the act of proclaiming faith and allegiance, but in actions that proceed “by” this same faith. So they can’t be equated. Abraham exhibited or lived out his faith by obeying God’s commandment to travel to a different land.

Abraham himself had no excellency which did not proceed from faith. He first teaches us that faith was the cause why he immediately obeyed God when he was commanded to remove from his own country; and then that through the same faith it was that he went on without wavering, according to what he was called to do even to the end. By these two things, — his promptness in obeying, and his perseverance, was Abraham’s faith most clearly proved.

This is good and true as far as it goes. But Calvin doesn’t go the whole way and acknowledge that faith and works go hand-in-hand, in terms of how one achieves salvation, as James makes very clear. To Calvin, this biblical teaching amounts to a Pelagian glorifying of what he thinks is a false notion of merit (a doctrine that has at least fifty biblical passages in its favor). I’ve also collected 80 passages that teach a salvation caused in part by various actions or works. Calvin eloquently describes Abraham’s extraordinary faith, expressed in a profound obedience:

It is a no ordinary trial of faith to give up what we have in hand, in order to seek what is afar off, and unknown to us. For when God commanded him to leave his own country, he did not point out the place where he intended him to live, but left him in suspense and perplexity of mind: “go”, he said, “into the place that I will show thee.” (Genesis 12:1.) Why did he defer to point out the place, except that his faith might be more and more exercised? Besides, the love of his native land might not only have retarded the alacrity of Abraham, but also held him so bound to it, so as not to quit his home. His faith then was not of an ordinary kind, which thus broke through all hindrances and carried him where the Lord called him to go. . . . That Abraham then courageously sustained this trial was an instance of great fortitude; but it proceeded from faith alone.

Exactly: faith and works go together and are organically connected. Sadly, Calvin gets so close to that here, without actually explicitly accepting it.