Matthew 19:29; 25:34-46; Mark 16:16; Luke 6:35; Acts 10:34-35

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 19:29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:29-30)

After having raised the expectation of his followers to the hope of a future life,

Indeed, Jesus said in v. 28: “you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones . . .”

he supports them by immediate consolations, and strengthens them for bearing the cross. For though God permit his people to be severely afflicted, he never abandons them, so as not to recompense their distresses by his assistance. And here he does not merely address the apostles, but takes occasion to direct his discourse generally to all the godly. The substance of it is this: Those who shall willingly lose all for the sake of Christ, will be more happy even in this life than if they had retained the full possession of them; but the chief reward is laid up for them in heaven.

Jesus expresses the thought, “If you do x, you inherit eternal life.” That’s much different from “if you believe in me and have faith, you receive possibility of having a connection to salvation. They don’t fit the “plan” and so they are either totally ignored, or else this obvious aspect is simply not addressed. Calvin noted that Jesus went beyond the disciples to “all the godly.”

But Calvin does a clever and not altogether honest thing. Rather than assert that their reward is heaven itself, as the passage does (“everyone who has [done any of these self-sacrificing things] . . . will . . . inherit eternal life”), he claims that “the chief reward is laid up for them in heaven”: that is, the person who does these things will be more greatly rewarded in heaven (the differential rewards that we all agree upon). But that’s not what the text teaches. It doesn’t say that the reward in heaven is a “hundredfold.” The “hundredfold” is referring to this life. The cross-references in Mark and Luke make this absolutely clear:

Mark 10:30 . . . receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

Luke 18:30 . . . receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

This is utterly contrary to the doctrine of “faith alone.” Calvin alludes to rewards in this life (“will be more happy even in this life”) but he doesn’t acknowledge that heaven itself is a reward, too. To sum up, the text (most undeniably in Mark and Luke) is in the following logical form: “whoever does x, will receive y and z“: as opposed to, “whoever does x, will receive y as part of z“.

Calvin simply ignores the central teaching of the text itself. And that won’t do. If we are serious about following the Bible as God’s inspired revelation, we must follow it wherever it leads, rather than trying to force-fit it into our preconceived theology, when in fact it does not harmonize with the latter (what is called eisegesis, or “reading into” a biblical text things that aren’t present). It’s an even more serious error when one is “messing around” with the words of Our Lord Jesus Himself.

Matthew 25:34-35, 41-43, 46 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . . [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; [42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, [43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ . . . [46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

We must remember Christ’s design; for he bids his disciples rest satisfied now with hope, that they may with patience and tranquillity of mind look for the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom; and next, he bids them strive earnestly, and not become wearied in the right course. To this latter clause he refers, when he promises the inheritance of the heavens to none but those who by good works aim at the prize of the heavenly calling. But before speaking of the reward of good works, he points out, in passing, that the commencement of salvation flows from a higher source; for by calling them blessed of the Father, he reminds them, that their salvation proceeded from the undeserved favor of God. Among the Hebrews the phrase blessed of God means one who is dear to God, or beloved by God. . . . There can be no doubt, therefore, that Christ, in describing the salvation of the godly, begins with the undeserved love of God, by which those who, under the guidance of the Spirit in this life, aim at righteousness, were predestined to life. [my bolding]

I think he’s putting too much stock in the notion that “blessed of God” could only mean “one of the elect.” After all, we have this passage, too:

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

Does that mean they were all saved and predestined for heaven? It can’t, since Judas was among them at this time (he was mentioned along with all the others in 6:14-16). Jesus also said the following:

Matthew 26:24-25 . . . woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” [25] Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Is it I, Master?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

John 17:11-12  And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. [12] While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Therefore, it follows inexorably that just because one is pronounced to be “blessed” by Jesus, or even that they possess “the kingdom of God”: it doesn’t always or necessarily mean that they are saved, let alone predestined to be saved. I think this is simply Calvin’s way of trying to avoid the plain “Catholic” implications of the text. In context, “blessed of my Father” refers to those who are actually about to enter eternal life. That said, it doesn’t follow, even if they are predestined (Catholics agree that all saved persons were predestined by God), that works had nothing to do with it. We say that both things are relevant to salvation, because Jesus said so (more plainly here than almost anywhere else in Scripture, out of the one hundred examples I have compiled).

It’s Jesus (not some pope or other Catholic) Who said that the ones who went to heaven at the Last Judgment did so, “for” [synonym of “because” here] they did various works. And the damned went to hell “for” they refused to do the same good works. That’s causation, any way we look at it. We’re happy to agree that the works go hand-in-hand with grace and faith; no problem. It’s what the Bible teaches. But Protestants want to remove works from the equation altogether, and that is what is blatantly unbiblical. They amazingly exclude from consideration the very thing that Jesus singled out in this passage, in Matthew 19:29, and earlier in Matthew 19, in His discussion with the rich young ruler (discussed solely and at length in my previous installment).

To this also relates what he says shortly afterwards, that the kingdom, to the possession of which they will be appointed at the last day, had been prepared for them from the beginning of the world. For though it may be easy to object, that the reward was laid up with a view to their future merits, any person who will candidly examine the words must acknowledge that there is an implied commendation of the grace of God. Nay more, Christ does not simply invite believers to possess the kingdom, as if they had obtained it by their merits, but expressly says that it is bestowed on them as heirs.

Again, it’s both things. Those who are saved in the end, were indeed predestined to be among the elect. But merit is still a factor in the causation of salvation because Jesus said it was (the all-important word, for in Matthew 25).

Let us always remember the inheritance which awaits us in heaven; for it depends on no uncertain event, but was prepared for us by God before we were born, —prepared, I say, for each of the elect, for the persons here addressed by Christ are the blessed of the Father.

Even as great of a saint as St. Paul wasn’t absolutely sure that he was saved, as Calvin thinks we all can and should be, since he wrote:

Philippians 3:11-13  that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . .

Note the six tentative qualifiers there . . . God knew that Paul was in the elect and would go to heaven, but Paul wasn’t sure, because he wasn’t God and didn’t know the future. And that’s the point in these discussions of predestination and our supposed certain knowledge of our salvation. We can have a moral assurance but not an absolute assurance.

For I was hungry. If Christ were now speaking of the cause of our salvation, the Papists could not be blamed for inferring that we merit eternal life by good works; 

He’s certainly speaking of one of the causes, and the only one mentioned in this passage concerning the Last Judgment. Faith is never mentioned.

but as Christ had no other design than to exhort his people to holy and upright conduct, it is improper to conclude from his words what is the value of the merits of works. With regard to the stress which they lay on the word for, as if it pointed out the cause, it is a weak argument; for we know that, when eternal life is promised to the righteous, the word for does not always denote a cause, but rather the order of procedure.

At least he’s responding to actual Catholic arguments (praise God!), but “for” is used in exactly the same way in at least nine other places in the NT, too:

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.

Galatians 3:11 . . . for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”;

Galatians 6:7-9 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. [8] For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. [9] And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

1 Timothy 4:16 . . . for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.

Revelation 3:4-5 . . . they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. [5] He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”

Calvin can try to play games with different meanings of words, but it won’t fly here: the text is too clear (as it invariably is).

We do not deny that a reward is promised to good works, but maintain that it is a reward of grace, because it depends on adoption. 

That’s not what the text says! Calvin is eisegeting again. It says nothing of the sort. Rather, it proclaims that people go to heaven because they did the good works mentioned. That is the text. What Calvin claims is simply his contradictory presupposition or preconceived view, smuggled into the text, when in fact it’s not there at all. Calvin believes that if works have anything to do with salvation, grace is thereby nullified, whereas the Bible states that good works flow from grace. Hence Paul could write:

1 Corinthians 15:10 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.

although by the guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, no reward is due to them, but the term reward is applied to that which is bestowed by grace.

I have collected fifty biblical passages about meritorious works. And my hundred against “faith alone” show over and over again that works playa role in determining salvation.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; . . .

By believing in the only begotten Son of God, not only are they reckoned among the children of God, but receiving the gift of free justification and of the Spirit of regeneration, they possess what constitutes eternal life. Baptism is joined to the faith of the gospel, in order to inform us that the Mark of our salvation is engraved on it . . . 

None of this addresses the text as it is, which is a combination of two propositions:

He who believes will be saved; . . .

He who is baptized will be saved; . . .

But by adding “and” between the two things that save us, it’s proven that both things are necessary. Calvin “gets out” of these clear and strong implications by superimposing onto the text the notion that regeneration is somehow separate from baptism, and that baptism is only a seal or testimony of an already received justification and salvation rather than a direct cause of salvation. If we treated all of Scripture so shabbily we could invent all manner of doctrines out of whole cloth. But we have to respect what inspired revelation teaches us.

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; . . .

In his commentary on this passage, Calvin completely ignores the fact that in this passage being “sons of the Most High” (being justified, saved, attaining heaven) is a result of loving enemies, doing good, and lending, expecting nothing back (two of these being good works, plus love that is proven by outward good works: “love is kind” after all [1 Cor 13:4], and kindness is a good action).

Acts 10:34-35 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, [35] but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

It seemeth that this place doth attribute the cause of salvation unto the merits of works. For if works purchase favor for us with God, they do also win life for us which is placed in the love of God towards us. Some do also catch at the word righteousness, that they may prove that we are not justified freely by faith, but by works. But this latter thing is too frivolous. For I have already showed that it is not taken for the perfect and whole observing of the law, but is restrained unto the second table and the offices of love. Therefore it is not the universal righteousness whereby a man is judged just before God, but that honesty and innocency which respecteth men, when as that is given to every man which is his.

Therefore the question remaineth as yet, whether works win the favor of God for us? which that we may answer, we must first note that there is a double respect of God in loving men. For seeing we be born the children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3,) God shall be so far from finding any thing in us which is worthy of his love, that all our whole nature causeth him rather to hate us; in which respect, Paul saith that all men are enemies to him until they be reconciled by Christ, (Romans 5:10.) Therefore the first accepting of God, whereby he receiveth us into favor, is altogether free; for there can as yet no respect of works be had, seeing all things are corrupt and wicked, and taste of [bespeak] their beginning. Now, whom God hath adopted to be his children, them doth he also regenerate by his Spirit, and reform in them his image: whence riseth that second respect. For God doth not find man bare and naked then, and void of all grace, but he knoweth his own work in him, yea, himself. Therefore, God accepteth the faithful, because they live godly and justly. And we do not deny that God accepteth the good works of the saints; but this is another question, whether man prevent the grace of God with his merits or no, and insinuate himself into his love, or whether he be beloved at the beginning, freely and without respect of works, forasmuch as he is worthy of nothing else but of hatred. Furthermore, forasmuch as man, left to his own nature, can bring nothing but matter of hatred, he must needs confess that he is truly beloved; whereupon, it followeth that God is to himself the cause that he loveth us, and that he is provoked [actuated] with his own mercy, and not with our merits. Secondly, we must note, that although the faithful please God after regeneration with good works, and their respects of works, yet that is not done with the merit of works. For the cleanliness of works is never so exact that they can please God without pardon; yea, forasmuch as they have always some corruption mixed with them, they are worthy to be refused. Therefore, the worthiness of the works doth not cause them to be had in estimation, but faith, which borroweth that of Christ which is wanting in works. [my bolding]

This is classic “total depravity” theology (which I have critiqued). Calvin says, “our whole nature causeth him rather to hate us.” This is outrageously incorrect. Pat McCloskey, OFM explains why in his article, “Did God Hate Esau?” (Franciscan Media,  5-12-20):

Malachi 1:1-3 says: “An oracle. The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. ‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD; but you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ says the LORD: ‘yet I loved Jacob, but hated Esau; I made his mountains a waste, his heritage a desert for jackals.’” Romans 9:13 quotes part of this passage, “As it is written: ‘I loved Jacob but hated Esau.’” Is it true that God hated Esau?

No, God did not hate Esau, but God did prefer Jacob (later known as Israel) over Esau. The Hebrew word used in these passages is translated as hate in The New American Bible, The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and The New Jerusalem Bible. If God prefers one person over another, biblical writers may say that God loves the one and hates the other, although God cannot hate any person.

According to The NRSV Concordance Unabridged, the word hate occurs 83 times in the Old Testament and 17 times in the New Testament, not counting hated, hates and similar words. In the Old Testament, 78 of those usages apply hate in the context of one person to God, an individual, a group of people or some type of sin. Only five times do we read that God hates in the sense described above.

The New Testament’s first usage of hate is a challenge to the idea that one person is allowed to hate another. In Matthew 5:43-45, Jesus says: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” . . .

Other New Testament passages apply hate as happening between one person and someone else or in the Semitic sense of prefer.

What the Bible teaches is that “God our Savior, . . . desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4) and that God “is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). Indeed, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8, 16). St. Paul wrote that “if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim 2:13). It’s precisely because God loves everyone that we are commanded to do the same:

John 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. (cf. 13:34; Mt 5:43-45, seen above)

1 John 3:11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

1 John 4:11-12 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. [12] . . . if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (cf. 4:7)

2 John 1:5 And now I beg you, lady, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.

Nor did God hate us when we were sinners, as Calvin vainly imagines, and start loving us when we repented. That would be conditional love; but His love (like a parent’s love) is unconditional. If, after all, He didn’t love us when we were sinners, it wouldn’t ever be His will to predestine us and save us in the first place:

Romans 5:6, 8 While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. . . . [8] But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

God hates no one, loves everyone; desiring that all be saved, and it is blasphemy and sacrilege to claim that He does do so.

Calvin claims, “the cleanliness of works is never so exact that they can please God without pardon; yea, forasmuch as they have always some corruption mixed with them, they are worthy to be refused.” This is untrue. King Solomon asked God, “Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind to govern thy people, that I may discern between good and evil” (1 Kgs 3:9). Then the text states, “It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this” (1 Kgs. 3:10). God then proclaims:

1 Kings 3:11-12 . . . “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, [12] behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you.”

Note that Solomon made the request before God granted him a “wise and discerning mind” with which he could “discern what is right.” It follows that he asked while still in an ostensible state of unregenerate sin. But Calvin asserted that such a person can never “please” God. That’s false. A person can do that by doing what is right: which is an intrinsically good thing. The Bible never teaches that all actions, even intended good one from unregenerate people “always some corruption mixed with them.” And those come from God’s grace, too (Catholics fully agree!). For more on this, see:

“All Our Righteousnesses Are As Filthy Rags” (Is 64:6, KJV): Does Isaiah 64:6 (“even our best actions are filthy through and through”: GNB) Prove That All Works Whatsoever, Done by Regenerated Persons in Faith and By Grace, Are Absolutely Worthless? [6-30-23]

Meanwhile, Calvin ignored, as usual, the main point of the passage at hand: “in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” He played around with it with his usual boilerplate polemics about “Reformed” soteriology, never directly addressing it. And that’s one of his constant tactics that we have observed all through this series of critiques. Calvin appears rather scared and fearful — if not outright contemptuous — of biblical teachings, as soon as they disagree with his prior beliefs. Otherwise he could simply deal with them head on, as I do, without all the foolish sophism and other avoidance techniques. I grant in charity that he may not be — probably is not, in my opinion — engaging in these tactics willfully or consciously, but he is still utilizing them in either case, and they remain highly objectionable.

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: [email protected]. 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”.

Matthew 7:16-21; 10:22; 16:27 

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 7:16, 18-21 You will know them by their fruits . . . [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [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. . . .

as that seed was degenerated from the very root, and as the corn which could spring from it, though not good or natural, was choked by a huge mass of errors, it is unreasonable to suppose that such destructive corruption is compared to sowing

Photo credit: John Calvin: unknown 16th century portrait [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”.

Psalm 7:10; Isaiah 1:27; 26:2; 32:17; 33:15-16; 48:18-19; 56:1

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”.

*****

Psalm 7:10 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.

He declares, that as God saves the upright in heart, he is perfectly safe under his protection. Whence it follows, that he had the testimony of an approving conscience. And, as he does not simply say the righteous, but the upright in heart, he appears to have an eye to that inward searching of the heart and reins mentioned in the preceding verse.

Accordingly, I cite his comment on Ps 7:9 also:

Accordingly there follows immediately after the corresponding prayer Direct thou the righteous, or establish him; for it is of little importance which of these two readings we adopt. The meaning is, that God would re-establish and uphold the righteous, who are wrongfully oppressed, and thus make it evident that they are continued in their estate by the power of God, notwithstanding the persecution to which they are subjected.—For God searcheth the hearts. The Hebrew copulative is here very properly translated by the causal particle for, since David, without doubt, adds this clause as an argument to enforce his prayer. He now declares, for the third time, that, trusting to the testimony of a good conscience, he comes before God with confidence; but here he expresses something more than he had done before, namely, that he not only showed his innocence, by his external conduct, but had also cultivated purity in the secret affection of his heart. 

None of this proves faith alone, or refutes the Catholic view of infused justification. Calvin simply notes that “they are continued in their estate by the power of God.” Of course we fully agree. That doesn’t preclude our necessary cooperation with God. But the point is that we must be righteous to be saved. Calvin hasn’t shown that it’s merely imputed righteousness and not an actual holiness of behavior. He provides nothing that Protestants need in order to determine that this verse supports rather than disproves the notion of faith alone.

Isaiah 1:27 Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.

Because the restoration of the Church was hard to be believed, he shows that it does not depend on the will of men, but is founded on the justice and judgment of God; as if he had said, that God will by no means permit his Church to be altogether destroyed, because he is righteous. The design of the Prophet, therefore, is to withdraw the minds of the godly from earthly thoughts, that in looking for the safety of the Church they may depend entirely on God, . . . though men yield no assistance, the justice of God is fully sufficient for redeeming his Church. And, indeed, so long as we look at ourselves, what hope are we entitled to cherish? How many things, on the contrary, immediately present themselves that are fitted to weaken our faith! It is only in the justice of God that we shall find solid and lasting ground of confidence.

Calvin commits the same mistake that he did regarding the previous verse: he refers solely to God’s primary and ultimate causational role in salvation, while ignoring man’s part in the transaction. Since he denies man’s free will, this makes consistent sense within his own paradigm, but it’s unbiblical. God saves the righteous. We must cooperate with God’s grace and become more righteous, as opposed to merely being declared righteous when we really aren’t. The entire context of the chapter makes that abundantly clear:

Isaiah 1:16-21 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, [17] learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. [18] “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. [19] If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; [20] But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” [21] How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.

It’s interesting how many of these themes appear in the NT in conjunction with salvation:

“He saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration” (baptism: Titus 3:5); “. . . our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22).

“Cleanse out the old leaven” (1 Cor 5:7); “let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect” (2 Cor 7:1); “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience” (Heb 10:22).

“A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit” (Mt 7:18); “those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:29); “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil” (Rom 2:9).

“do good . . . and you will be sons of the Most High” (Lk 6:35); “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life” (Jn 5:29); “glory and honor and peace for every one who does good” (Rom 2:10); “They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, . . . so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed” (1 Tim 6:18-19).

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you . . . have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, . . .” (Mt 23:23).

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Lk 4:18).

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (Jas 1:27).

Isaiah 26:2 Open the gates, that the righteous nation which keeps faith may enter in.

When the Prophet calls the nation “righteous and truthful,” he not only, as I mentioned a little before, describes the persons to whom this promise relates, but shews the fruit of the chastisement; for when its pollution shall have been washed away, the holiness and righteousness of the Church shall shine more brightly. . . . 

Now, as the Prophet foretells the grace of God, so he also exhorts the redeemed people to maintain uprightness of life. In short, he threatens that these promises will be of no avail to hypocrites, and that the gates of the city will not be opened for them, but only for the righteous and holy. It is certain that the Church was always like a barn, (Matthew 3:12) in which the chaff is mingled with the wheat, or rather, the wheat is overpowered by the chaff; but when the Jews had been brought back into their country, the Church was unquestionably purer than before. . . . though the Church even at that time was stained by many imperfections, still this description was comparatively true; for a large portion of the filth had been swept away, and those who remained had profited in some degree under God’s chastisements.

There is not much to disagree with here –at least, prima facie; it reads very “Catholic”; even including themes not unlike the purifying processes of purgatory. But, as in the previous passages, Calvin basically is highlighting what God did, and ignoring the role of human beings cooperating with the God’s saving and enabling grace, per his theological system, which is insufficiently biblical.

Ten verses later (26:12), we see a synergistic, “both/and” passage (“thou hast wrought for us all our works”) that exhibits the notion of our works — truly ours! — being at the same time, God’s, much like 1 Corinthians 15:10: “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.” Other translations help to elaborate upon this passage’s meaning:

NIV . . . all that we have accomplished you have done for us.

KJV . . . thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

NKJV . . . You have also done all our works in us.

Amplified . . . You have also performed for us all that we have done.

CEV . . . everything we have done was by your power.

GNB . . . everything that we achieve is the result of what you do.

We still do something. And because we cooperate and do what God makes possible, by His grace (as with all good works), we achieve merit in doing them; as St. Augustine famously wrote, “Merit is God crowning His own gifts.”

Isaiah 32:17 And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever.

He now promises a different kind of repose, which will be a striking proof of the love of God, who has received them into favor, and will faithfully guard them. . . . that different kind of repose, on the other hand, which the children of God obtain by a religious and holy life, and which Isaiah exhorts us to desire, shewing that we ought fearlessly to believe that a blessed and joyful peace awaits us when we have been reconciled to God.

In this way he recommends to them to follow uprightness, that they may obtain assured peace; for, as Peter declares, there is no better way of procuring favor, that no man may do us injury, than to abstain from all evil-doing. (1 Peter 3:13.) But the Prophet leads them higher, to aim at a religious and holy life by the grace of God; . . .

Part of this “procuring favor” and that which we “obtain by a religious and holy life” is doing the good works which the Bible teaches are crucial to salvation itself. But Calvin carefully avoids any such implication. I submit that my hundred passages cannot all be dismissed simply by ignoring the author’s intent when it contradicts Calvinism. He almost “backs into” Catholic soteriology, but in the final analysis skirts around it.

Isaiah 33:15-16 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil, [16] he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him, his water will be sure.

No man, indeed, can be so holy or upright as to be capable of enduring the eye of God; for “if the Lord mark our iniquities,” as David says, “who shall endure?” (Psalms 130:3.) We therefore need a mediator, through whose intercession our sins may be forgiven; and the Prophet did not intend to set aside the ordinary doctrine of Scripture on this subject, but to strike with terror wicked men, who are continually stung and pursued by an evil conscience, This ought to be carefully observed in opposition to the Popish doctors, by whom passages of this kind, which recommend works, are abused in order to destroy the righteousness of faith; as if the atonement for our sins, which we obtain through the sacrifice of Christ, ought to be set aside.

Ah! Now we see the incipient anti-Catholicism that never lurks very far beneath the surface of Calvin’s commentary. Note how he creates a false dichotomy (a common feature of his theology and methods of argumentation). As soon as dreaded “works” are brought into play at all, they must be denigrated, as if the Bible doesn’t teach that they play a real role in salvation (always alongside grace and faith, which are antecedent to them). My hundred Bible passages are designed to cut through this falsehood and to relentlessly refute it from the Bible. Works are not in opposition to “the sacrifice of Christ”; rather, they naturally flow from it. They are how we show or prove that we are in Christ: as Jesus Himself taught:

John 15:2, 4-6, 8 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. . . . [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

Photo credit: John Calvin (1564: British) [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”.