Calvin
on Justification
All
of the magisterial reformers recognise that “justification by faith” is
shorthand for “justification by grace through faith in
Christ”; i.e., faith “puts on” Christ and he (alone) is our justification.
There is no quality inhering faith that renders “my faith” “my
justification.” If a quality
inhering faith is thought to justify, then faith becomes another form of
self-justification. Barth insisted
that the point of “justification by faith” is that it is God who justifies
us rather than we who justify ourselves.
We are justified by grace (alone) through faith (alone) on account of Christ
(alone.) Note that when Paul speaks
of justification “by” (“through”) faith, he writes dia pisteos not dia
pistin. In Romans 3 Paul does
not use “alone” when he speaks of justification, but Luther correctly saw
that this was the meaning of the text; hence L’s “alone” was not out of
place.
[1] Faith puts on Christ who is both
our justification and our sanctification. Justification
plus sanctification together are the grand sum of the gospel.
Calvin repeats this in his work passim.
3.11.1
[2] Since Christ can’t be divided,
justification and sanctification can never be separated even though they must
always be distinguished.
[3] Neither justification nor
sanctification is the ground of the other.
[4] Justification means that ultimately the believer has to do with the gracious Father rather
than the just (and therefore undeflectable) judge.
3.11.1.
[5] Justification is the “main
hinge on which religion turns.” 3.11.1.
Valentius Loescher, a 17th century Lutheran, insisted, Iustificatio est articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae.
(articulus: article, point,
crisis, division, hinge {thumb})
Most religions repudiate this articulus
formally (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses); most church folk repudiate it
informally – i.e., operatively.
Those who would never repudiate it formally are often found repudiating it
subtly and thereby fall into one or another form of self-justification insofar
as
we are justified by our grasp of the doctrine of
justification
by our ability to articulate the doctrine in private or publi
c
by faith as the substance of our justification
by “grace” and “works” in that grace by provides an outer
framework
whose inner content is our achievemement
by (in modernity with its psychological preoccupation and
its emphasis on ego-strength, etc.) our awareness that “we need do nothing to
be accepted.”
In other words, modernity tends to abstract justification
from its rootage in Christ
[6]
To be justified is to be both “reckoned righteous” and to be
“accepted.” 3.11.2
“Reckoned” echoes Paul’s forensic model; “accepted” adds the
relational (personal) dimension.
Again, one must be aware of the secularisation of the doctrine today.
God, however, “sees” in Christ only those who are
in Christ (by faith in Christ.) 3.11.3.
[7] Dispute with Osiander.
(See class notes on “The Mediator and His Work.”)
O. documents from scripture that Christ is one with believers, yet fails to
grasp the nature of this oneness: by faith we are bound to Christ in utmost
intimacy, but Christ is never transfused into us thereby obliterating the
distinction between us, obliterating our identity, and rendering us incarnations
as well. 3.11.5.
Osiander’s errors: we are justified inasmuch as we are made righteous through the impartation of holiness.
(Problem: no believer is sufficiently holy to secure his own
righteousness.)
: Christ is our
righteousness simply in virtue of his deity.
(Problem: our sin isn’t seen as serious enough to be that for which atonement (propitiation) is needed.
We merely need to be elevated (divinised.)
Note the affinities here with modernity.
[8] While C retains “imputation”
in that he feels it essential to the truth of justification, he rejects the
accusation that such terminology suggests iciness, sterility, the mechanistic or
the impersonal. For when we “put
on” Christ we cease “contemplating him from afar”; we are “engrafted
into his body”; we are “made one with him”; we “glory that we have
fellowship of righteousness with him.” 3.11.10.
[9] “Justification”,
“forgiveness’, “free remission”, “reconciliation with God” are all
synonyms.
3.11.11
and 3.11.21.
[10] Note the following in the
3.11.11:
(i)
Since
justification is never separated from sanctification, and sanctification is
never separated from mortification, C can’t be accused of “cheap grace.”
(ii)
Battles’
“traces” (of sin) for reliquae
(remainder) is much too weak. Reliquum
means “remainder”, “arrears”, “debt”, “outstanding (sum)”,
“residue”, “subsequent.”
(iii)
Reformation of
life is gradual (and frequently slow.)
(iv)
At all times
Christians, of themselves, merit condemnation.
(See 3.11.21.)
[11] The Spirit reforms the
justified person (i.e., advances her in holiness) not directly but through the
Son. 3.11.12
Since the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, C endeavours here to disavow what he
regards as Anabaptist vagaries concerning the Spirit; on the other hand, he
endeavours here to disavow what he regards as RC vagaries concerning holiness:
holiness consists in adopted sons/dtrs being conformed to their elder brother.
At no point does justification mean that we are deemed righteous on the ground
of Spirit-wrought fruits of regeneration in believers. 3.11.14.
[12] For C assurance is always
assurance of our standing with God, which standing is grounded in Christ (not
ourselves). For “papists and
schoolmen”, on the other hand, assurance is assurance of conscience that their
Spirit-inspired quest for holiness merits
God’s recognition and reward. (Hence
C speaks of them as “doubly deceived.”) 3.11.14.
Justification by faith, rather, directs our contemplation away from ourselves in
all respects to “God’s mercy” and “Christ’s perfection” alone.
3.11.16.
[13] While always aware that
justification is the antithesis of moralism, C recognises moral distinctions.
Not to do is both silly and a threat to social order.
3.14.2. Still, moral virtue
is qualitatively distinct from the Kingdom.
Here C parts company with modern liberalism, mediaeval scholasticism, and
some forms of contemporary RCm. (E.g.,
Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christian.”) 3.14.3.
When C speaks of the “sheer disgrace of need and emptiness” he is not speaking morally but rather theologically.
His point is that the moral people are yet un-graced.
Neither is he speaking psychologically.
C thinks theologically throughout the discussion. 3.14.5.
Justification is the beginning of love for God.
(What “righteousness” could ever precede it?)
Our works-righteousness, so far from exemplifying love for God, is
actually defiance of him. Only the
justified person loves God. 3.14.6.
[14] The justified person has
“regard not for the work of the law but for the commandment of God.”
3.14.10. Luther is magnificent on
this matter. Every commandment can
be fulfilled only in faith. Commandments
2 through 10 are properly and profoundly obeyed only if the first is; i.e., only
in faith.
[15] Remember: to undervalue
justification by faith means that we do “not realise what an execrable thing
sin is in God’s sight.” 3.14.13.
[16] The sum of the doctrine is
“we are received into grace by God out of sheer
mercy”,
“this comes about by Christ’s intercession and
is apprehended by faith”,
“all things exist to the end that the glory of
divine goodness may fully shine
forth”.
3.14.17.
Professor V. Shepherd
