1 LAW OF THE GIANTS: NOMOLOGY IN LUTHER AND CALVIN The most influential theologians of Christian history are St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, suggests church historian Phillip Schaff. 1 Both Reformation giants learned much from their patristic predecessor–yet remain as different as a German and a Frenchman can be. 2 This paper compares and critiques the differences between Luther and Calvin in their nomology. Some describe the Geneva reformer in terms that imply lifestyle legalism; 3 others consider it more nearly true that Luther is “history’s greatest antinomian.” 4 How could these two apostles of the Reformation gospel be perceived so differently? Are they merely at opposite ends of the same law and gospel dialectic, apparently opposed but fundamentally unified? Or are there dramatic and irreconcilable differences in their nomology? 11 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910), 736. 2 Schaff, History, 737-736. 33 Williston Walker, John Calvin: The Organiser [sic] of Reformed Protestantism (New York: Schocken, 1906), 4 William M. Landeen, Martin Luther’s Religious Thought (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1971), 174. Landeen is not reporting his own conception of Luther.
28
Embed
Law of the Giants: Nomology in Luther Versus Calvin
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
LAW OF THE GIANTS:
NOMOLOGY IN LUTHER AND CALVIN
The most influential theologians of Christian history are St. Augustine, Martin Luther,
and John Calvin, suggests church historian Phillip Schaff.1 Both Reformation giants learned
much from their patristic predecessor–yet remain as different as a German and a Frenchman can
be.2 This paper compares and critiques the differences between Luther and Calvin in their
nomology.
Some describe the Geneva reformer in terms that imply lifestyle legalism;3 others
consider it more nearly true that Luther is “history’s greatest antinomian.”4 How could these two
apostles of the Reformation gospel be perceived so differently? Are they merely at opposite ends
of the same law and gospel dialectic, apparently opposed but fundamentally unified? Or are there
dramatic and irreconcilable differences in their nomology?
11
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910), 736.
2Schaff, History, 737-736.
33Williston Walker, John Calvin: The Organiser [sic] of Reformed Protestantism (New York: Schocken,
1906), 4William M. Landeen, Martin Luther’s Religious Thought (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1971),
174. Landeen is not reporting his own conception of Luther.
2
2
I regard the latter as true, believing that their legal differences go beyond style to
substance. There is a great gulf fixed between Calvin and Luther in their nomologies, although
both reformers share the same starting point: a view of law and gospel that justifies the believer
with imputed righteousness instead of Rome’s infusion. From there they proceed on different
tracks. Calvin sees the law as a guide to living God’s love, whereas Luther typically limits the
law as a guide or pedagogue for the pre-regenerate. God’s law for Calvin is a friendly companion
along the pilgrim path; Luther sees the law for believers as a yoke of bondage, a stimulant to sin,
and an enemy of faith–yet, ironically, necessary for one to keep believing.
Nevertheless, Luther has a high view of law with Calvin, even though he positions God’s
commandments in a dialectic relationship with the gospel, whereas Calvin sees law and gospel
not only compatible but complementary. To Calvin, being “not under the law but under grace”
means that the elect who live by faith in Christ are not under not its condemnation; Luther agrees
but adds that believers are also not under the law’s authority and influence. He basically teaches
two uses of the law, though some would disagree. Calvin sees three–the tertius usus legis being a
guide for Christians. Luther looks for guidance not to the letter of the law but to the indwelling
Spirit, although he emphatically declares that such a life fulfills the law–yet is not guided by it.
Calvin values a life (both individual and societal) of law and order motivated by grateful and
respectful love.
This paper will explain and evaluate these complexities, seeking to conclude with a
harmonious nomology derived from both Luther and Calvin. My thesis is that while both
reformers have strengths and weaknesses, Luther’s overall concept of law is more compatible
with saving grace, although Calvin’s nomology is more comprehensive through its third use of
the law, which I suggest should be the test of faith and not its guide.
Significance of this study
Nearly one half millennium after the Reformation, both Luther and Calvin are still
relevant and significant to our world. A popular book of a secular historian listing of the 100
3
3
most influential persons of human history ranks Luther as 25th
and Calvin as 57th
.5 Their
theology has rippled throughout modern society far beyond religion itself, in government,
culture, language, values, and even the economy through the “Protestant work ethic.”6 One
business textbook describes Calvin as “the single most powerful influence in the formation of
modern business.”7 Such is the lasting effect upon western civilization from the Reformation that
Luther launched and which Calvin’s societal principles guided.
Regarding nomology specifically, the societal implications of God’s law as taught by
Luther and Calvin affected not only Europe but the founding of the American colonies. One
cannot understand the pioneering Puritans without probing Calvin’s concept of divine law
applied in government, nor appreciate American democracy without understanding the Radical
Reformation’s rejection of it.
For all the above reasons and undoubtedly others as well, this study of Reformation
nomology has significance. In a narrower context, my Seventh-day Adventist faith community
considers itself divinely commissioned to consummate the Reformation, specifically regarding
the keeping of God’s commandments.
5Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons of History, rev. ed. (Secaucus, NJ:
Carol Publishing, 1992). Perhaps the rankings are affected by the bias of a secular historian–Thomas
Aquinas does not even make the list.
6Richard Sennett, who teaches sociology at the London School of Economics, assesses Max Weber’s
famous theory of the Protestant work: “Calvin’s God replies, ‘Try harder. Whatever is, is not good
enough.’” See Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Character (New York: Norton, 1998), 104. Karl Holl
regards as plausible Weber’s linkage of Calvinistic discipline and its effect upon productivity, but is
unsure about Weber’s suggestion that the saints are goaded by a quest for spiritual certainty to seek a
“sign of election” in prosperity. Holl says the opposite case may just as well be true, in which Calvinists
are so secure in salvation that they feel free to pursue business unfettered by spiritual anxiety. I propose
that the latter motivation is more reflective of Luther than Calvin, as we shall discuss. See Karl Holl, The
Cultural Significance of the Reformation (New York: Living Age Books, 1959.)
7Max L. Stackhouse, et al, On Moral Business (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 180.
4
4
Methods, procedures and limitations
Following this introduction and background, I propose to examine the nomology of
Luther first and Calvin next according to these seven testing elements: 1) law and gospel, 2)
nature of law, 3) obedience to law, 4) Sabbath and the law, 5) usage of the law, 6) being “under”
the law, and 7) problems with the law. I will then offer my own theological critique and
assessment for each of those seven elements in both reformers.
In attempting to review and critique these theological champions, I am like a
neighborhood jogger, huffing and puffing around the block, musing on the relative merits of two
Olympic marathon runners. Thus respect and humility are appropriate on my part. I want the
teaching of Luther and Calvin to critique my own beliefs more deeply than I am capable of
evaluating theirs. I take comfort that even Paul himself, upon whose writings Calvin and Luther
largely constructed their nomology, expected the anonymous Berean believers to evaluate his
teaching. I likewise invite the reader to judge this paper on its own merits and offer feedback. If
my interaction with the data stimulates further study or discussion, I shall be content.
This study is limited by space and pages available for this project. I must resist venturing
into areas of general theology and intriguing biography, except for whatever may directly impact
nomology.
Regarding sources: sufficient primary sources exist and are included in this study to
adequately understand the nomology of both reformers. For Luther, I consider the most
authoritative source to be his commentary on Galatians, which better reflects his mature thinking
than his much earlier commentary on Romans. For Calvin, the Institutes, of course, must be the
focus. And for both Reformation giants, the selected writings of renowned researchers and
theologians are secondary sources providing both background and theological insight.
5
5
LUTHER’S NOMOLOGY
Law and Gospel
The focal point of Luther’s theology is freedom in the spirit of the gospel, having been
released from the letter of the law. The law’s injunction: “Do this and thou shalt live” is satisfied
by the gospel’s triumphant announcement: “It is finished!” “Come for all things are now
ready.”To Luther, the gospel does not put believers to work seeking to fulfil the law; instead, it
invites us to rest in Christ’s fulfillment of it.
Foundational to Luther’s nomology is his two-fold knowledge of God, outlined during
the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. First is the theology of glory (theologia gloriae) which is the
natural or legal knowledge of God. “The gospel is hidden from it and unknown to it. Even a
legalistic piety can speak of God’s goodness, but that is not the same as knowing that God is
merciful and accepts sinners.”8 This “natural law” or legal-based theology of glory is the
counterpart and counterfeit of the evangelical knowledge provided in the theology of the cross
(theologia cruces)–for Luther is the essence of true theology9. Luther sees law almost in
opposition to the gospel in a dialectic relationship “sharply distinguished but not to be
separated.”10
And so Luther regards all scripture divided dualistically into commands (law) and
promises (gospel); the Old and New Testaments also fall into the general categories of law and
gospel, respectively.11
8Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert. C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966),
18.
9Justo L. Gonzales, A History of Christian Thought, vol 3, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1975), 42-
43.
10Althaus, Theology, 257.
11Hugh Thomson Kerr, Jr., ed., A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1943), 100.
6
6
Luther sees the law as a yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1).12
“The heavy yoke of the law is
replaced by the light and easy yoke of Christ.”13
Luther says fallen human reason is
fundamentally legalistic, preferring the law’s yoke to Christ’s freedom.14
Nature of Law
Given Luther’s warnings against law-centered living and sometimes even the law itself,
one might suspect a low conception of law, perhaps even antinomianism. But respect for God’s
law in its proper place is a continuing theme throughout his writings and sermons. In his treatise
How Christians Should Regard Moses, Luther insisted that the law should not be “swept under
the rug.”15
The law is the moon and the gospel the sun. The law is the lightning and the gospel
the warming sun.
Luther sees significance in the two tables of the Ten Commandments, citing Augustine.16
The first table declares duty to God and the second, duty to fellow humanity. In a word, this duty
is love. An interesting sidelight in Luther’s nomology is that he assigns the first table of the law
authority over the second, meaning that love to God takes precedence over love for humanity.
Sometimes upholding the first table requires breaking of the second table, Luther posits. For
example, he affirms the Old Testament matriarch Rebecca for urging her younger son to defraud
12
Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 2d ed., trans. Theodore Graebner
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), 196.
13Althaus, Theology, 269.
14Luther, Galatians, 196.
15“‘I want to keep Moses and not put him unter den banck stecken (lit.”put under the bench,” a proverbial
medieval German expression meaning “to put aside, hide, or forget some despicable thing”). Timothy F.
Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 140.
16Martin Luther, “The Sermon on the Mount,” Luther’s Works, vol. 21, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis:
Concordia, 1956), 66.
7
7
the elder, since love to God in respecting sovereign will (regarding the birthright) takes
precedence over love to humanity.17
Anything that is not grace is law, so Luther puts the Mosaic ceremonial laws under the
umbrella of divine expectations together with the Decalogue.18
However, the Ten
Commandments are distinguished by their eternally relevant principles–but not the seventh-day
Sabbath, as we shall see.
Obedience to Law
Luther has no objection to works: “We do not condemn them for their own sake but on
account of … the perverse idea that righteousness is to be sought through them.”19
He declares:
“I do not want idle Christians.”20
However, he draws a clear distinction between the imperatives
of the gospel and the imperatives of the law. He believes that believers fulfil the law, not as a
goal in itself but as a fruit of a Spirit-filled life under the easy yoke of Christ.21
He hails
spontaneous works which are motivated by gratitude for grace, expressing love to God and
fellow humanity: “Where the spirit of God is, there is liberty, as St. Paul says. No teacher or law
is necessary, and yet a man does everything that ought to be done.”22
Luther seems to regard this
fulfilling of the law as an unconscious, serendipitous fruit of the indwelling Spirit. He urges in
his Commentary on Galatians to “ignore the law and to live before God as though there were no
17
Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, vol. 2., comp. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia,
1959), 751.
18Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper, 1968), 95.
19Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian,” in Martin Luther, Three Treatises, 2d rev. ed., trans. W.
A. Lambert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 277ff. In William C. Placher, Readings in the History of
Christian Theology, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 18.
20Luther, Anthology, 763.
21Althaus, 271.
22Martin Luther, Works of Martin Luther: The Philadelphia Edition, vol 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1982), 362.
8
8
law whatever.”23
This reflects the famous advice of Luther’s patristic mentor, Augustine: “Love
God, and do as you please.” Luther even turbocharged that advice: “For if you do not ignore the
law and thus direct your thoughts to grace as though there were no law but as through there were
nothing but grace, you cannot be saved.”24
To support the strength of such statements, Luther
sometimes quotes 1 Timothy 1:9: “The law is not made for a righteous person, but for the
lawless and insubordinate.” Luther interprets this as meaning that the justified need not concern
themselves with law but simply live fervently and faithfully in the Spirit.
Luther had to clarify and temper his nomology when antinomian radicals such as John
Agricola brought difficulty to the Reformation by misinterpreting the freedom of the Spirit.
Luther retorted: “To reject the law, without which neither church nor civil authority nor home
nor any individual can exist, is to kick the bottom out of the barrel. It’s time to resist. I can’t and
I won’t stand for it.”25
When Stubner, one of the notorious “Heavenly Prophets,” cried: “‘The
Spirit, the Spirit!’ Luther replied, ‘I slap your spirit on the snout.’”26
The Sabbath
Luther sees no need to keep the seventh-day Sabbath, declaring it to be “stopped” along
with animal sacrifices.27
He declares in his Smaller Catechism: “God did not command us
Christians to observe any day.”28
Thus all days of the week are identical in terms of sacredness.29
Luther not only overlooks the inherent value of the seventh-day Sabbath as a memorial of
23
Luther, Galatians, 90.
24Luther, Galatians, 90.
25Martin Luther, Table Talk, 248.
26Website www.presenttruthmag.com.
27In Hillerbrand, Reformation, 90.
28Martin Luther, Small Catechism (St. Louis: Concordia, 1943), 59.
29Landeen, Luther, 196
9
9
entering God’s rest, he fails to grant it even the standing of natural law with the rest of the
Decalogue. Instead, he associates the Sabbath with irrelevant ceremonial laws.30
When confronted with the claims of the Sabbath, Luther once replied: “‘Go to the Jews
with your Moses; I am no Jew. . . . If I accept Moses in one respect, then I am obligated to keep
the entire law.’ For not one little period in Moses pertains to us.”31
Some of Luther’s most turbulent relations were with sabbatarians: Jews, naturally, and
Andreas Karlstadt, Luther’s former compatriot but now radical enemy. His unpleasant
relationships with Sabbath keepers understandably did not endear him to the seventh day, yet is
difficult to sanction his ridicule of the peaceful and sensible Moravians for their faithful
obedience to the biblical fourth commandment.
Usage of Law
Luther regards the law has having two offices, or functions. The first is its natural
function, noted above, which recommends itself to the individual conscience and society as the
will of God. His second function is evangelical, driving the sinner to Christ for gospel grace.32
Beyond that, Luther is somewhat inconsistent in nomology, not tidy and systematic like Calvin.
At times Luther explicitly declares that “the law is not preached for the new man, the man of
faith, for he has the spirit of God which is freely subject to the law.”33
So believers need neither
the warnings nor the instruction of the law, Luther asserts. Yet other times he counsels that the
law should be “preached without distinction to the pious as well as to the impious.”34
Believers
should continue to hear the law, since they still live in a sinful body. Because of this remaining
30
In Hillerbrand, Reformation, 90.
31Lull, Theological, 140.
32Gonzalez, History, 53-54.
33Althaus, Theology, 270.
34Luther, Anthology, 771.
10
10
sin, we must permit ourselves to be “rebuked, terrified, slain, and sacrificed by the Law until we
are lowered into the grave. Therefore before and after we have become Christians, the Law must
in this life constantly be lex occidens, damnans, accusans (the slaying, condemning, accusing
Law).”35
Elsewhere Luther urges the law to be preached to the saved that they may not only
regard themselves as sinners but also mortify the flesh, lest they become “impetuously secure.36
In evaluating Luther’s nomology, we must note that Luther is not suggesting that
believers get marching orders from the law, as does Calvin. To Luther, the law for believers
reminds them continually that they need gospel grace. Nevertheless, some students of Luther
such as Helmut Thielicke,37
Paul Althaus,38
and textbook author Justo Gonazles39
have
concluded that Luther urges tertius usus legis, as Melanchthon40
did and other later Lutherans at
the Formula of Concord.41
My assessment is that, yes, Luther at times teaches a third use of law,
but decidedly not in the same way as does Calvin, as we shall see, or orthodox Lutherans after
Luther’s death. I regard context as the key to understanding Luther’s own uncharacteristic
comments on tertius usus legis: in the heat of battle, when defending himself against the
antinomians, perhaps his passion triumphs over precision as he urges the legal imperatives of the
Spirit-filled life.
Luther eventually came to acknowledge that some immature or carnal Christians lack
sufficient influence from the Spirit to experience God’s guidance and so need “apostolic
commandments” to restrain them.42
But this is law only in its broad sense as a principle. True, in
35
Luther, Anthology, 770.
36Luther, Anthology, 771.
37Helmut Thielicke, Theologische Ethik, in website www.presenttruth.com.
38Althaus, Theology, 272.
39Gonzalez, History, 53, n. 52.
40Archive VII/7-3.htm, www.presenttruthmag.com
41Article VI of the Formula of Concord, “The Third Use of the Law.” In website www.semper
reformanda.com.
42Althaus, Theology, 270-271.
11
11
an isolated case he recommends the Ten Commandments as a “pattern for doing good works.”43
But seeing the law as a pattern, which is passive, is not quite saying the law is an active guide.
This distinction is subtle but significant. Luther is overwhelmingly adamant that the only real
guide for a believer is the Spirit moving within, not the letter of the law. True, in his hymn about
the Ten Commandments, he says the law tells us “how before God man should live.”44
But I
would argue that this use of law for believers is not so much a guide as a test. Once again, the
distinction is subtle but real.
Luther’s overwhelming testimony throughout three decades of nomology is that the law
is for unbelievers, while people of faith live by the Spirit instead of the written code. As support I
would point out that never in Luther’s nomology do believers derive motivation from the law, ala
Calvin. And never does he use the term tertius usus legis.
Not under the Law
Although Luther was compelled to close what some antinomians exploited as a loophole
in his theology, he does teach at many times, in many ways, that believers live not under law but
under grace. To Gonzalez, Luther interprets this to mean “the Christian is no longer subject to
the curse of the law”45
But “under the law” for Luther goes beyond being under its curse or
condemnation; it also means under its “influence” or “dominion46
.”Luther gets bolder yet,
insisting that Galatians 4:4 declares that Christ’s purpose in coming was the “abolition” of the
law in redeeming us from the law.47
He continues:
43
Althaus, Theology, 272.
44Althaus, Theology, 272.
45Gonzalez, History, 60.
46Luther, Galatians, 153-154.
47Luther, Galatians, 153.
12
12
Christ banished the Law from the conscience. It dare no longer banish us
from God. . . . The Law . . . still raises its voice in condemnation. But the
conscience finds quick relief in the words of the Apostle: “Christ has
redeemed us form the law.” The conscience can now hold its head high
and say to the Law… “You have lost your influence forever.”48
Problems with Law
A number of Pauline passages apparently propose that focusing on law will only worsen
one’s sin problem. In a particularly creative analogy, Luther compares sin to lime, a soil
conditioner, and the law to water, which activates lime to become a severe skin irritant. The
solution is the soothing oil of the gospel, which heals us from the law.49
Luther clearly
understood the irony that the same law that condemns sin only increases sinful behavior: “the
strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:56, also Rom. 7:8). And so he emphasizes much more than
Calvin such texts that identify the law as the correlate of sin.50
Now, to summarize Luther’s nomology: His consistent teaching throughout three decades
of commentary is that the law provides both the individual conscience and general society with a
natural knowledge of sin. Secondly, it evangelistically convicts of sin in light of God’s wrath,
causing spiritual seekers to flee into Christ’s salvivic provision. After faith comes, the law is
neither a motivator nor a guide. Loving gratitude for salvation stimulates obedience, with the
indwelling Spirit providing both guidance and empowerment. The Spirit also is the primary
safeguard of obedience; at best the law plays a secondary role to protect immature believers from
stumbling into immorality. For believers, the law also serves as a continuing reminder to keep
looking away from meritorious works to Jesus for salvation.
Luther’s concept of law features some sharp contrasts with Calvin, as well as some
compatibilities, as we shall now see.
48
Luther, Galatians, 154.
49Luther, Anthology, 758.
50Edward A. Dowey, Jr., The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1952), 223, n.4.
13
13
CALVIN’S NOMOLOGY
Law and Gospel
John Calvin’s focal point of theology is the salvation covenant, an integral part of which
is the law. He sees the law not simply as a “collection of commands” about how to live well but
as an integral element of the grace covenant.51
Law and gospel are not enemies, nor even rivals,
but friends. “The relationship between law and gospel, rather than being dialectical, becomes
almost continuous.”52
The two are intermingled throughout both testaments. The Bible itself is
the story of the covenant, God’s contractual agreement through the gospel that Jesus, the eternal
Word of God, would become the incarnate savior. The saved are the community of those elected
by God’s sovereign foreknowledge to receive His gift of grace. Such is the covenant on a
corporate basis.
Individually, the God’s Spirit moves the elect to acknowledge sin and awakens within
them a faith response for accepting the gospel. This faith blossoms into faithfulness–a life of
grateful love to God and fellow humanity, which is the keeping of His commandments. “For
Calvin there is nothing worse that trying to live the Christian life without definite, revealed
norms or rules.”53
Yet he acknowledges that the law “kills its readers” when severed from the
grace of Christ.54
51
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.7-2. In Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin,
trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 92.
52Gonzales, History, 146.
53Donald K. McKim, ed. Readings in Calvin’s Theology. In I. John Hesselink. Christ, the Law, and the
Christian: An Unexplored Aspect of the Third Use of the Law in Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1984), 181
54T. F. Torrance, Calvin’s Doctrine of Man (London: Lutterworth, 1952), 176.
14
14
Nature of Law
To Calvin, the decalogue is a condensed form of divine expectations, an “accommodated
expression of universal, eternal law.”55
He looks beyond the Ten Commandments to the
antecedent principles they express. Proof that law preceded sin is the pre-fall Eden prohibition
against eating from the tree.56
Calvin also employs Luther’s analogy of the law being a mirror that points out sin.57
But
his nomology is not primarily negative, in that the law exposes sin, but positive, regarding its call
to love God and fellow humanity. To him, the law is intended for life. But since post-fall
humanity is corrupted and at enmity with God, His law becomes an instrument of death to sinful
man. Yet this is an “accidental” property of the law rather than its original purpose or function.58
To Calvin, the law finds its center in Jesus. Christ in fact christianized the law, as evident
in the Sermon on the Mount. Nobody can truly understand the law without relating it to Jesus,
who is the vere anima–very soul–of the law as well as its goal.59
So every divine command as
well as promise points to Christ. So there is no inconsistency when he refers sometimes to the
law and other times to Christ as the “norm or rule of godly living” and the expression of God’s
will.60
As for the Mosaic ceremonial law, Calvin regards them as peculiar to Israel, adapted to
their time and place.61
Yet the whole legal structure of ancient Israel is an expression of God’s
orderly will in creation,62
conveying eternal principles. 55
Dowey, Knowledge, 226.
56Dowey, Knowledge, 224.
57William F. Keesecker, A Calvin Treasury (New York: Harper, 1961), 68.
58Dowey, Knowledge, 225.
59Niesel, Theology, 95.
60McKim, Readings, 188.
61Francois Wendel, Calvin: His Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip Mairet
New York: Harper, 1950), 198.
62Dowey, Knowledge, 226-227.
15
15
Obedience to Law
Calvin sees three fundamental principles that govern obedience to the law. First, that God
is Spirit, so His commandments are to be obeyed not just by letter (outward actions) but by His
Spirit working within our spirit (heart obedience). Secondly, that since the law preceded sin,
obedience is not primarily reactive against sin but proactive. Thus every prohibition is reframed
in positive terms. Calvin employs the logic of synecdoche: if a violating a commandment
displeases God, then keeping it must please Him. So the sixth commandment against killing
ultimately means that believers do everything possible to preserve life.”63
Calvin’s third fundamental principle is that obedience is an act of relational love. He reflects
Luther’s concept that the two tables of the decalogue signify love first to God and then love to
fellow humanity.64
Through the gospel, the law is restored to its original, principal use: a guide
to the will of God, explaining how to love Him and love one another. This is not legalism.
Fervent obedience stems from gratitude for having received justification and is not the cause of
it.65
Sabbath
Like Luther, Calvin denies that the Sabbath commandment obligates believers to keep the
seventh day. The weekly Sabbath was a shadow until the coming of Jesus,66
an Old Covenant
tool for teaching rest from works and anticipating true rest to come. So the Sabbath is a call to
“cease trusting in . . . works and mortify concupiscence. Self–denial is therefore in a deep sense
63
Dowey, Knowledge, 26.
64Dowey, Knowledge, 226.
65Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2d ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 443.
66Benjamin W. Farley, ed. John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1980), 98.
16
16
the true meaning of the Sabbath.”67
It is unclear how a day designed for spiritual rest qualifies as
a time for ascetic mortifications.
Calvin sees a secondary purpose of the Sabbath: to partake of public worship and
teaching. He believes the transferral of Christian worship to Sunday is a sign of gospel liberty.68
Usage of Law
Calvin discerns three offices or uses of the law. The first is to convince the elect that
spiritual weakness and depravity have fatal consequences. This serves to “summon consciences
to the judgment-seat of God," where they learn to appreciate saving mercy in Christ.69
However,
to Calvin the law is not needed to lead the elect to the gospel; salvation might also come the
other way around, wherein God’s covenantal grace leads the elect to respect the law.
The second use of the law is for the unregenerate, to stifle the commission of sin–not
only for the pre-ordained reprobate but also for the elect themselves previous to regeneration.
Thus the law of God is the foundation of civil law. Calvin tried to transfigure Genevan society
into harmony with the Ten Commandments through this second office of the law. Resisters were
punished. Blatant heresy became a civil offense; offenders were jailed and sometimes burned. A
later generation of Calvinists imported this concept of government to the American colonies,
where it fostered intolerance and persecution.
Calvin’s third use of the law, tertius usus legis, is for the instruction and motivation of
believers. This emphasis on the law as the guide for Christian living was peculiarly Calvin’s
own.70
Calvinism has always been concerned about character, although we are saved to character
rather than by character. 67
Ronald Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959), 120, n. 5.
68Wallace, Doctrine, 120, n. 5.
69Calvin’s Commentaries, Baker ed., vol. 2, p. 140. In Michael S.Horton, “Calvin and Law-Gospel