Unlike many “Reformed” theologians today who view conditional or instrumental language with respect to good works as unorthodox or legalistic or outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, Calvin unashamedly uses such language.

When I was a student at Westminster Seminary, I spent a number of months studying the Norman Shepherd controversy which racked that institution decades ago, listening to recordings, talking to some of the men involved, weighing the arguments for and against Shepherd. As I studied this issue, one particular concern emerged, a concern that reemerged within the past few weeks as I read the critiques and condemnations of a man who has fought, especially in recent years, to uphold and defend the Reformed doctrine of justification against those whose views endanger it.  And while I came down on the side of Shepherd’s critics, it seemed that a small number of them ended up defending a view of justification that was decidedly at odds with Calvin’s.

That’s the concern:  that many of the contemporary arguments used to defend a Reformed doctrine of justification don’t seem to be very Reformed at all. While I was working through the Shepherd debacle at Westminster, I began looking at what Calvin has to say about the relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification, obedience and eternal reward. What I found surprised me and my concerns were only confirmed.

Unlike many “Reformed” theologians today who view conditional or instrumental language with respect to good works as unorthodox or legalistic or outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, Calvin unashamedly uses such language. While I appreciate R. Scott Clark and Rachel Green Miller’s zeal to preserve the Reformed tradition, and while I’ve personally benefited from their writings throughout the years, I can’t help but wonder, as I read their critiques of Piper: What kind of “Reformed tradition” are they trying to defend? In their zeal to defend Calvinism, it seems to me that Clark and Green-Miller have actually departed from Calvin’s views on this subject rather than provide a sound defense of them. As I hope to show, I just don’t think there is anything Piper has argued on this particular subject that Calvin hasn’t also argued, often using more explicit language. Here are just a few brief arguments Calvin makes in his discussion of these issues, arguments which I think will serve as a corrective to some of the uninformed and rhetorically bombastic comments being made by those who should know better. All quotations are from Calvin’s Institutes and those references without a citation are from the previously cited section.

First, Calvin notes that actual holiness of life cannot be separated from the free imputation of righteousness. We cannot enjoy one benefit without enjoying the other. We cannot be justified without also being sanctified: “When this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness” (3.3.1).

Second, the reason for the indissoluble bond between the free imputation of righteousness and actual holiness of life lies in the nature of our union with Christ. Those united to Jesus Christ receive a double grace: justification and sanctification. Arguing against Osiander’s doctrine of essential righteousness as the ground of justification, Calvin argues that we are united to Christ in a solidaric bond by the power of the holy Spirit and therefore receive both the imputation and infusion of his righteousness (3.11.6). Jesus Christ cannot be torn in two, thus imputed righteousness and sanctification while distinct (contra Osiander), are nevertheless inseparable and simultaneously bestowed benefits enjoyed in mystical union with Him: “As Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable- namely, righteousness and sanctification…Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the Spirit of adoption, by whose power he remakes them to his own image” (3.11.6, emphasis mine).

Third, repentance is not merely the fruit of forgiveness but is also, according to Calvin, the prior condition of forgiveness (3.3.20). Notice that Calvin distinguishes between repentance as a condition of pardon and repentance as the basis of pardon: “We must note that this condition is not so laid down as if our repentance were the basis of our deserving pardon, but rather, because the Lord has determined to have pity on men to the end that they may repent, he indicates in what direction men should proceed if they wish to obtain grace” (3.3.20). The true believer is displeased with his sin, hastens to God, and yearns for him in order that he, “having been engrafted into the life and death of Christ, might give attention to continual repentance. Those who hate sin cannot do otherwise than pursue righteousness.”

Fourth, Calvin speaks of holiness as the necessary bond of union with God (3.6.2). Holiness is not optional for the true believer and God will not dwell with those who are unclean: “From what foundation may righteousness better arise than from the Scriptural warning that we must be made holy because our God is holy?”

This does not mean that we, by our holiness, merit or earn the gift of union: “When we hear mention of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be its bond; not because we come into communion with him by virtue of our holiness! Rather, we ought first to cleave unto him so that, infused with his holiness, may may follow whither he calls.” Those whose lives are not marked by holiness cannot enjoy such fellowship:

“Since it is especially characteristic of his glory that he have no fellowship with wickedness and uncleanness, Scripture accordingly teaches that this is the goal of our calling which we must ever look if we would answer God when he calls [Is. 35:8, etc].” God will not dwell with those who profane him with impurity. In order to dwell with the Lord and be reckoned as the people of God, we must be holy: “At the same time Scripture admonishes us that to be reckoned among the people of the Lord we must dwell in the holy city of Jerusalem [cf. Ps. 116:19; 122:2-9]. As he has consecrated this city to himself, it is unlawful to profane it with the impurity of its inhabitants…For it is highly unfitting that the sanctuary in which he dwells should like a stable be crammed with filth” (3.6.3).

Read More