Calvin on Justification

This essay explores John Calvin’s (1509-1564) understanding of justification in Book 3, Chapter 11 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. In particular, it will look at Calvin’s argument in this chapter for imputed righteousness, that justification does not entail our actually being made righteous, but only that we are counted as righteous in God’s sight.

Before commencing, however, it is important to observe that Calvin’s writing in the final Latin edition (1559) of the Institutes, which I will be using, is often highly polemical. So, it is difficult to follow his exegesis if we do not first understand the position he is reacting against. I will therefore begin by considering the antithesis of Calvin’s position, and describing what his problem with it is. This will allow us to appreciate his theological motivations by placing his arguments within their larger context.

Framing the Problem

Calvin’s opponents believe that “righteousness is composed of faith and works.”¹ Calvin is not pleased with this position. For one thing, it is haughty: “so long as any particle of works righteousness remains some occasion for boasting remains with us.”² The focus upon our works takes the focus away from Christ. Indeed, contrary to the “papists,” “Scripture, when it speaks of faith righteousness, leads us to something different, namely, to turn aside from the contemplation of our own works and look solely upon God’s mercy and Christ’s perfection.”³ Calvin’s motivation is therefore to direct our minds beyond ourselves and towards Christ.

However, the problem goes deeper than this. For Calvin this issue is also deeply pastoral. Despite his opponents, the “Schoolmen,” claiming that they can achieve righteousness through works, the sober fact is that “we are all far from observing the law.”⁴ In practice, then, the dogma of works righteousness robs God’s people of peace, “cloaking … the mercy of God which alone can set fearful souls at rest.”⁵ Calvin is passionate about this issue because it harms Christ’s sheep. And so, Calvin’s polemical language reflects this concern. He feels that those who perpetuate the works righteousness view are “Sophists” who “do not even grasp the first elements of logic”; they must commit “ingenious subterfuge” in order to support their position.⁶

Calvin's Definition of Justification

Calvin therefore begins his chapter on justification with a careful definition: “we explain justification simply as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men. And we say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”⁷ This definition undercuts the appeal to outward righteous works because it articulates our righteousness in forensic or legal, rather than causal or metaphysical, terms. In other words, God sees us or counts us as if we are righteous even though we are not actually righteous. The person “clothed in [Christ’s righteousness], appears in God’s sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man.”⁸ This means that justification is not dependent on external behaviors like good works. And that means people can have peace knowing they are accepted by God.

Calvin supports his view by appealing to several biblical texts. In Luke 7:29, for example, when Luke says that people “justified God,” this “does not mean that they confer righteousness” to God.⁹ They do not somehow make God righteous but are simply declaring that God is righteous. Similarly, when in Luke 18:14 the praying sinner descends from the Temple “justified” this does not mean he is caused to be actually righteous (for the previous verse affirms he is still a sinner), but that “the sinner is considered as a just man in God’s sight.”¹⁰

In §5, Calvin begins interacting with the views of Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), who held to a view called “‘essential’ righteousness.”¹¹ Osiander maintained that Christ’s righteousness was literally “transfused” into us, so that “we must actually be righteous” when justified.¹² Calvin spends no less than eight sections responding to Osiander, ultimately concluding that “‘to be justified’ is a legal term” and that “God justifies by pardoning,” thus making us righteous “not intrinsically but by imputation [i.e., ‘being counted as’].”¹³ In §13 and following, Calvin then turns to argue that justification happens by faith alone, in which he interacts with details surrounding the meaning of the phrase “works of the law” and whether this refers to “moral works” more generally or to “ceremonial works” such as circumcision.¹⁴

An Evaluation of Calvin's Argument

Overall, Calvin’s argumentation is sharp, dense, and flows quickly. Often, one must linger over a sentence for a few minutes in order to tease out all the logic within. In fact, I think one critique of Calvin’s argument is that it at times moves too quickly. He covers tremendous ground. Seamlessly moving between various biblical books such as Luke, Acts, Romans, and Galatians within a single paragraph, some might therefore suspect Calvin of cherry-picking verses to support his position, rather than taking the time to read through them in context.

However, in fairness to Calvin, he states at the outset that “it would take too long to collect all the passages and compare them” and that therefore he shall “bring forward only a few.”¹⁵ Indeed, this critique of Calvin’s approach in the Institutes raises the more fundamental question of theological methodology. It is probably not valid to accuse Calvin of hasty exegesis in the Institutes when it is ostensibly a work of systematic theology; those wanting a slower, verse-by-verse treatment might instead consult one of his many biblical commentaries.

Even so, in a few crucial cases, spending a bit more time discussing the underlying language of a passage would have strengthened Calvin’s argument in this essential chapter of the Institutes. For instance, on more than one occasion he cites 2 Corinthians 5:21.¹⁶ This verse states that God made Christ to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Calvin reads this verse to support imputation. He observes that “the way in which this righteousness is obtained” is made clear in the preceding v. 19, namely, “when our sins are not counted [i.e., imputed] against us.”¹⁷

This is fair. Yet, it is still not a trivial matter deciding how to understand the “becoming” language of the Greek text of v. 21. Whether we understand ourselves as becoming the righteousness of God in a literal sense is pivotal for determining whether Christ’s righteousness is metaphysically transfused into us, as Osiander maintains, or whether it is simply imputed or counted to us as those clothed in Christ’s righteousness, as Calvin maintains. While Calvin does at times allow himself the space to discuss the underlying biblical languages,¹⁸ unfortunately, he does not engage the Greek of this particular, crucial text.

Yet we cannot fault him too harshly. Systematic theology must by its very nature cover vast breadth; and a theologian like Calvin must choose for himself the theological hills on which to linger—and perhaps die. Calvin’s treatment of disputed texts in the Institutes is a reminder to systematic theologians to find the right balance between breadth and depth.

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.13, in Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960).

[2] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.13.

[3] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.15; 3.11.16.

[4] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.15.

[5] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.14.

[6] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.14; 3.11.19.

[7] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.2.

[8] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.2.

[9] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.3.

[10] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.3; my emphasis.

[11] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.5.

[12] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.5; 3.11.11.

[13] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.11.

[14] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.19.

[15] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.3.

[16] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.4; 3.11.22.

[17] Calvin, Institutes 3.11.22.

[18] E.g., Calvin, Institutes 3.11.3: “Those skilled in the Hebrew language better understand this sense…”