Geneva: Calvin

The process by which a distinct Reformed identity emerged over the period 1510‒ 40 involves a complex interplay between religious and cultural contexts and the personal reforming agendas of individuals who came to be accepted as representative of, or authoritative for, Reformed theological communities. 1 A cluster of distinctive themes came to be associated with the emerging Reformed communities – the use of the vernacular in the reading of Scripture, prayer and public worship; the rejection of the cult of saints, purgatory and indulgences; and the rejection of any form of works-righteousness. 2 Yet Calvin ’ s 1539 declaration to Jacopo Sadoleto that the doctrine of justification was the ‘ first and most acute subject of controversy’ 3 between the Reformed community of Geneva and Catholicism represents a sharpened focus on the doctrine of justification, identifying its polemical significance in a manner that would later be reflected in Calvin’ s constructive assessment of the doctrine. In this chapter, we shall explore the emergence of early Reformed views on justification.

The influence of humanism over early Reformed theology in Switzerland was significant, and has important implications for understanding the lack of interest in issues of soteriology typical of the movement in its early stages. 7 Although Erasmus does not appear to have developed any personal interest in the doctrine of justification, his general approach to it is tends to focus on the reformation of the morality of both the institution of the Church and the lives of individual believers, with an accompanying concern for any theological formulations that might appear to minimise or subvert such moral concerns. 8 For Erasmus, the New Testament sets out a philosophia Christi , so that the New Testament can be regarded as fundamental to a religiously educative and formative process. 9 Erasmus thus emphasises the importance of the moral sense of Scripture, by which he is able to demonstrate the continuity of the lex evangelica from the Old Testament to the New. 10

The influence of Erasmus over Zwingli at this early stage in the emergence of his reforming programme appears to have been significant, 11 even if that programme cannot fully be described as ‘ Erasmian’ . While Zwingli emphasised the moral implications of justification, he grounded his positive attitude towards the law in the Old and New Testaments themselves, rather than in the moralist presuppositions of the various forms of humanism which impacted on his theological development at this point. In his early humanist period, Zwingli’ s understanding of justification appears to have been primarily ethical – seen, for example, in his programmatic statement that faith is ‘ the foundation on which the law is built’ . 12 His contemporaries within the Swiss humanist movement regarded him as a fine exponent of the philosophia Christi , with its distinctive emphasis upon moral integrity. For Zwingli, the ‘ righteousness of faith’ , based upon obedience to God, must be contrasted with ‘ self-righteousness’ , based upon self-confidence. The similarities between Erasmus and Zwingli on the lex evangelica can be seen particularly clearly in their subordination of justification to regeneration. Zwingli rarely uses ‘ justification’ or ‘ justified’ , tending to use the term rechtglöbig (‘ right-believing’ ) instead. For Zwingli, a ‘ right-believing person’ (der rechtglöbige Mensch ) obeys the law naturally and willingly, in contrast to the unbeliever.

Whereas, for Luther, the question of how one might find a gracious God led to his intense personal preoccupation with the doctrine of justification, Zwingli’ s concerns appear to have been primarily with the reform and revitalisation of Swiss society and the church – in other words, with at least some aspects of the wider humanist vision of Christianismus renascens . Far from regarding the doctrine of justification as the centre of the gospel, and the foundation of a coherent programme of theological reform, Zwingli initially appears to have adopted a form of moralism, demonstrating clear and significant affinities with Erasmus’ s philosophia Christi . 13 It must, however, be noted that Zwingli had no first-hand knowledge of Luther’ s reforming programme in the late 1510s, and developed his own vision of reform, which was both adapted to and influenced by his Swiss context. Zwingli’ s programme of reform initially corresponds to that of the circle of Swiss humanists to which he belonged; his divergence from that programme is probably to be dated from around the year 1520, after his arrival at Zurich and the inauguration of his reforming ministry. 14

Johannes Oecolampadius played an important role in consolidating the social and theological position of the Reformation at Zurich. 15 Like Zwingli , Johannes Oecolampadius affirmed the gratuity of justification, while stressing the importance of an ensuing moral regeneration. This has led some to suggest that Oecolampadius’ s chief concern appears to have been the ethical dimension of faith. 16 However, this theme can also be instanced from leading writers of the Lutheran evangelical faction around this time. Although Oecolampadius makes occasional reference to justification in his 1525 Romans in terms of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, his primary emphasis appears to be on justification as the non-imputation of past sin.

An increasing alignment with other evangelical groups, particularly Luther and Melanchthon , is evident in the writings of Zwingli’ s successor at Zurich, Heinrich Bullinger . Bullinger’ s use of rhetorical approaches to the interpretation of the Pauline letters shows the influence of Melanchthon at points of importance 17 – as does his articulation of the doctrine of justification. Recent scholarship has shown that Bullinger’ s Romans commentary of 1525 shows a dependence at critical points on Melanchthon’ s Romans commentary of 1522, as well as suggesting influence from several of Luther’ s writings of the early 1520s. 18 Although there are points of continuity with Zwingli, Bullinger increasingly moves towards Luther’ s totus homo theology, seeing sin and righteousness not as partial aspects or compartments of human nature, but as descriptions of human nature in its totality. 19

At this point, Bullinger tends to think of justification as the communication of the righteousness of God to the believer: ‘ this is the most important point: God alone is holy, all human beings are sinners. But God communicates his holiness to those who believe in Jesus’ . 20 While Bullinger tends to gloss the notion of justification in terms of ‘ becoming holy (fromm )’ , rather than being ‘ reckoned as righteous’ , 21 he clearly understands faith in Christ as the means by which the righteousness of Christ is communicated (mitteilen ) to believers. Through the work of the Spirit, the believer participates in Christ. 22 Bullinger’ s views later sharpened, particularly as a result of the controversies over the ‘ Ratisbon Book’ of 1540‒ 1. 23

During the 1530s, Bucer adopted much of the emerging vocabulary and conceptualities of justification then associated with Luther and Melanchthon . Justification is a free and gracious act of God, by which God ‘ forgives sins, imputes righteousness, and bestows eternal life’ . 29 Yet this forensic definition of justification is embedded within a theological framework which affirms that justification is both declarative and effective. Bucer’ s careful integration of the work of the Holy Spirit in justification precludes him from reducing justification to forensic categories, in that he explicitly frames justification as making possible the transformative work of the Spirit. 30 Although some scholars have referred to Bucer’ s approach as ‘ double justification’ , this description is best avoided, as it invites comparison with the later attempts during the 1540s to create a theologically diplomatic resolution of tensions between Protestants and Catholics by proposing two formal causes of justification – a matter to which we shall return in a later chapter .

Bucer clearly wished to forge a secure theological link between the totally gratuitous justification of sinners, based solely on a free and gracious act of the divine will, and the moral obligations which this subsequently placed upon them. The righteousness and good works which are effected by the Holy Spirit are to be seen as the visible evidence of humanity’ s unmerited acceptance in the sight of God. Just as a good tree produces good fruit, so the justified sinner must produce good works. 31 Bucer highlights the importance of God bestowing the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit, who ‘ sets us on fire in the pursuit of righteousness (qui nos iustitiae studio incendit )’ . 32 We may indeed be declared to be, or accepted as, righteous – but within this context of divine acceptation, the transformative and energising work of God’ s gift of the Spirit enacts that righteousness in the life of faith, impelling us to pursue and actualise this righteousness in the life of faith (ut nos quoque aliquo iustitiae studio impellamur ). 33 God breathes the power of the Spirit into those who have been ‘ acquitted and declared righteous before him’ , in order to begin the process of transformation by which believers are ‘ conformed to the likeness of Christ’ and their moral characters are transformed, thus ‘ arousing and encouraging holy desires’ . 34

What motivated Bucer to emphasise the transformative aspects of justification, which seems to sit uneasily within the forensic approach favoured by the Wittenberg reformers, particularly Melanchthon ? Three reasons may be given. First, Bucer saw this as an authentically Pauline approach, and considered his analysis of the process of justification to be a reliable account of the apostle’ s position. It is interesting to note that although Bucer affirms the imputation of righteousness to believers, he more often speaks of the non-imputation of sin . Second, Bucer’ s patristic scholarship made him aware that the majority of patristic writers – including Augustine – interpreted dikaiousthai or iustificare in the sense of ‘ to be made righteous’ , and believed that this historical observation had to be given due weight in contemporary theological reflection. And third, Bucer was concerned to hold together the believer’ s acceptance as righteous in the sight of God with an expectation that the internal process of transformation wrought by the Holy Spirit would lead to the enactment and expression of righteousness in the life of faith – a concern that Bucer considers to be grounded in Paul’ s statement that those who do the law will be justified (Romans 2:13). 35 It is possible to see such this as reflecting an Erasmian cultural agenda; nevertheless, it is reasonable to point out that a similar concern can be discerned within the Pauline letters, making Bucer’ s desire to resolve this issue entirely natural within an evangelical context.

Yet alongside this, we must note a possible apologetic motive, which is known to lie behind the writing of Calvin’ s Christianae religionis institution (more generally known simply as the ‘ Institutes ’ ) – the concern that the evangelical movement as a whole might be seen to encourage or condone lawlessness. The violent Anabaptist seizure of Münster in February 1534 caused serious concern throughout much of western Europe, and gave rise to the view that evangelicalism was a force for social and political instability.

This brief affirmation of forensic justification is developed further in subsequent editions of the Institutes . Humanity is not made righteous in justification, but is accepted as righteous, not on account of its own righteousness, but on account of the righteousness of Christ located outside of humans. Calvin’ s brief discussion of the nature of imputation parallels that of Erasmus ’ s Novum instrumentum omne (1516), noted above. For Calvin, persons may be said to be justified when they are accepted by God as if they were righteous: 39 ‘ We therefore interpret “ justification” simply as the acceptance by which God receives us in grace and treats us as righteous (qua nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro iustis habet ), consisting of the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.’ Calvin strongly defends the forensic character of his concept of justification, particularly in his polemic against Osiander . 40 The emphasis placed by Calvin upon the acceptatio divina parallels that of the via moderna and the schola Augustiniana moderna , suggesting an affinity with the voluntarism and extrinsicism of these late medieval movements, 41 and also their tendency to emphasise the priority of divine acceptation over the mode by which this is enacted. Calvin insists that, as there is no basis in humans for their divine acceptation, their righteousness in justification is always extra seipsum ; our righteousness is always non in nobis sed in Christo . 42

Although Calvin may be regarded as following the lead of Melanchthon in this matter, he nevertheless preserves an important aspect of Luther’ s understanding of justification which Melanchthon appeared to have sidelined and which Bucer retrieved – the personal union of Christ and the believer in justification, 43 a core element of the modern Finnish interpretation of Luther. Thus Calvin speaks of the believer’ s being ‘ grafted into Christ’ , so that the concept of incorporation becomes central to Calvin’ s understanding of justification. 44 The iustitia Christi , on the basis of which humanity is justified, is treated as if it were that of humanity within the context of the intimate personal relationship of Christ and the believer. 45 Calvin’ s polemic against Osiander concerns the fundamental nature, rather than the existence, of the union of Christ and the believer. Where Osiander understands this union to be physical, Calvin considers it to be purely spiritual.

The two consequences of the believer’ s incorporation into Christ are the ‘ double grace’ or ‘ the two principal graces’ of iustificatio and sanctificatio , which Calvin holds to be distinct and yet inseparable. 46 Thus where Bucer speaks of iustificatio pii or ‘ secondary justification’ , Calvin speaks of sanctificatio ; where Bucer links the first and second justifications on the basis of the regenerating activity of the Holy Spirit, Calvin relates them on the basis of the believer’ s insitio in Christum . Justification and sanctification are aspects of the believer’ s new life in Christ, and just as one receives the whole Christ, and not part of him, through faith, so any separation of these two interlocked soteriological elements is inconceivable. 47

Calvin’ s insistence upon the distinctiveness yet inseparability of justification and sanctification must be taken very seriously, as must the analogies that Calvin uses in exploring this point – such as that of the sun and its radiance. ‘ By its heat, the sun gives life to the earth and makes it fruitful; by its beams, it brightens and illumines it. There is a mutual and indivisible connection here. Yet it is clearly unacceptable to transfer the specific qualities of the one to the other.’ 48 Calvin’ s point, then, is that justifying faith is always accompanied by the fruit of sanctification, just as the sun’ s light and heat may be distinguished yet not separated. The importance of this point is perhaps best seen from one of Calvin’ s responses to Jacopo Sadoleto , who considered evangelical approaches to justification to be incoherent, lacking any place for human moral agency. Calvin’ s response merits close attention. 49

The strength of Calvin’ s understanding of justification is that justification is now conceived Christologically , thus permitting the more moral conception of justification associated with Zwingli to be discarded. Where Zwingli tended to make justification dependent upon believers’ regeneration through the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, which enabled them to keep the law and imitate the (external) example of Christ, Calvin understands both justification and sanctification to be the chief beneficia Christi , bestowed simultaneously and inseparably upon believers as a consequence of their insitio in Christum . Sanctification is not the effect of justification; both justification and sanctification are effects of union with Christ. Notice also how sanctification is now conceived Christologically, in terms of ‘ becoming what we are’ – that is to say, actualising our new status in Christ in our lives through the process of being conformed to Christ.

Like Luther and Bullinger , Calvin implicates Christ intrinsically within the ordo salutis , 50 echoing Luther’ s realist conception of justification as the personal encounter of the believer with God in Christ, while simultaneously retaining the extrinsicism of the Melanchthonian concept of justification. Like Luther, Calvin stresses that faith is implicated in justification only to the extent that it grasps and appropriates Christ. 51 Indeed, faith may be said to play its part in justification by insisting that it does not justify, rather attributing everything to Christ. 52 In other words, the possibility that the slogan ‘ justification sola fide ’ will be understood as ‘ justification propter fidem ’ is excluded from the outset: justification can only be propter Christum . Faith is merely the vessel which receives Christ – and the vessel cannot be compared in value with the treasure which it contains. Faith may thus be said to be the instrumental cause of justification. 53 It will, however, be clear that Calvin is actually concerned not so much with justification as an abstract theological entity as with the importance and consequences of the believer’ s incorporation into Christ (which has, as one of its necessary consequences, justification). It is this point that goes some considerable way towards explaining the lack of importance which Calvin appears to attach to justification in the 1559 Institutes .

Calvin defends the idea that justification takes place on the basis of faith, not the works of the law, appealing to the example of Abraham to make this point. 54 So what does Calvin understand by the ‘ works of the law’ ? In his comments on Romans 3.27– 8, Calvin makes it clear that this term is to be understood more widely than cultic or sociological identity markers. Paul here refers not only to ceremonial observances, but to human achievements generally.

It is well known that in the 1559 edition of the Institutes Calvin defers his discussion of justification until Book III, and it is then found only after a detailed exposition of sanctification. This does not sit easily with the assumption that Calvin passively replicates Luther’ s concern with the articulus iustificationis . Though clearly recognising the iconic status of the doctrine of justification within the wider evangelical movement, Calvin’ s concern here is with the manner in which the individual is incorporated into Christ, and the personal and corporate consequences of this insitio in Christum – of which justification is but one. Calvin thus expresses systematically what Luther grasped intuitively – that the question of justification was essentially an aspect of the greater question of the relation of humanity to God in Christ, which was discussed conveniently , yet need not be discussed exclusively , in terms of the category of justification. 55 In effect, all the watchwords of the Reformation relating to this theme – sola fide , sola gratia and even sola scriptura – may be reduced to their common denominator: justification is through Christ alone .

Calvin’ s unifying schema of ‘ union with Christ (insitio in Christum )’ provided a theological framework within which the gracious apprehension of Christ and his benefits by the believer could be articulated and rendered coherent, establishing the framework within which subsequent discussion of justification within the Reformed school would proceed. Calvin’ s successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza , illustrates this trend well, distinguishing three elements of Calvin’ s notion – apprehensio , insitio and incorporatio . 56 Where Calvin tended to speak of insitio in Christum – an ‘ insertion into Christ’ , understood as a mystical rather than a physical relationship – Beza consistently uses the formula coniunctio nostra cum Christo to refer to the process of the apprehension of Christ through faith, leading to the outcomes of wisdom, justification, sanctification and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30).

Beza’ s theological formulations are lent added significance on account of his meticulous and influential editorial work on the text of the New Testament. 57 The King James Bible (1611), for example, made extensive use of the 1588– 9 and 1598 editions of Beza’ s Annotationes . Beza’ s comments on various aspects of the doctrine of justification in the Latin footnotes to his Greek text are illuminating. For example, ‘ to be justified’ (Romans 5:1) is glossed as ‘ to be absolved of our sins through the death of Christ’ . 58 In his remarks on Romans 6:5, Beza also offers a botanical analogy to illuminate coniunctio nostra cum Christo : we are like a vine which attaches itself to the trunk of a tree and, in doing so, can be said to be united in such a way that we share and live off the same sap (coalescunt, ut communi succo vivant ). 59 By feeding on Christ and his attributes, such as righteousness, we in turn become what we ingest. 60

The Reformed exploration of the doctrine of justification by faith, although quite independent in the late 1510s and early 1520s, indicates a growing convergence – though not unanimity – with some core themes of the approaches set out by Luther and Melanchthon in the 1530s. There were issues of theological diplomacy involving the Zurich– Wittenberg– Strasbourg– Geneva stakeholders that never allowed a coalescence into a unified vision capable of rigorous confessional formalisation. 61 Yet despite these divergences, there was clearly a will to signal a significant degree of theological commonality in relation to the question of justification, recognising this as part of the family history of the evangelical groupings of this period. Yet Reformed theologians found ways of expressing their core convictions on this issue which came to focus on the theme of the ‘ union of Christ’ – a notion which is unquestionably present in Luther’ s writings, but which never became a unifying framework for the multiple elements of his understanding of justification.