Faith Begins with the Holy Spirit
trust in the Lord." Elsewhere it is written: "Whoever believes shall not be put to shame," and "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Clearly, all these virtues exist in a person already justified, and God shows mercy to such an individual.
But the main controversy lies in determining which of these virtues is primarily responsible for justification. Undoubtedly, by the testimony of the scriptures, this must be attributed to faith. Pighius further argues that in the condition David mentioned, it is stated they should remember the commandments of God to perform them.
He says it does not add "to do all the commandments": God accepts a person who strives to do them, and in his mercy, he forgives many things. However, the phrase "to do them" must necessarily be understood to mean all commandments; for in the law, which this man calls the testament, all are indeed written. And if God forgives or remits anything, he does so to individuals who are already regenerate, not to those who are still estranged from him and children of wrath—such individuals are not yet justified but are still preparing themselves and striving to meet the conditions; to these, nothing is remitted. Therefore, they are obligated to all. Hence
Moses said, as Paul testifies: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Faith Begins with the Holy Spirit 66. Pighius continues, raising a question about the origins of faith, asking from whence it begins in us. We simply answer that faith begins with the Holy Spirit. But he feigns wonder at how we grant the Holy Spirit to a man before he believes, thinking this absurd.
Initially, I cannot fathom why this man would find such a concept surprising, but then I realize that he aligns with the Pelagians in
teaching that faith is of ourselves and is attained through human effort. Otherwise, if he believed that faith is from God and the Holy
Spirit, he would not separate the cause from its effects.
However, to ensure he does not think we attribute the beginning of faith to the Holy Spirit without good reason, he should consider the clear testimonies of the Scriptures. Paul states in his first epistle to the Corinthians, "Not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom but on God's power." Further, he writes, "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." How can they be spiritually discerned unless the Spirit of God is present?
Children also understand that from conjugate words, coupled as in one yoke, firm arguments are derived. To the Galatians, Paul writes,
"God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, 'Abba, Father.'" By the Spirit, we believe, and in believing, we call upon God; indeed, "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children," as stated in Romans. And to the Ephesians, "Be strengthened by the Spirit in your inner being so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." Here we see that the faith by which we embrace Christ comes from the Spirit of God, which strengthens our inner being. The apostles, when they requested, "Lord, increase our faith," clearly declared that it did not originate from their own capabilities but by the inspiration of Almighty God.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 states, "To one is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by the same
Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing
by that one Spirit." He adds that it is the same Spirit who works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. If you argue that this passage and the aforementioned request of the apostles pertain to the particular faith by which miracles are performed, I might not dispute it heavily. Yet, if you insist, I would argue from the lesser to the greater: if these gifts cannot be obtained but by the Spirit of God, much less can the universal and effectual faith by which we are justified be obtained from elsewhere.
Furthermore, Paul writes to the Romans, "God has allotted to each a measure of faith." And in his second letter to the Corinthians, "We have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, 'I believed, therefore I have spoken.' We also believe and therefore speak." In Galatians, the fruits of the Spirit are listed as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and selfcontrol. Faith here is numbered among the fruits of the Spirit, hence it proceeds from the Spirit. But to the Ephesians, he states more explicitly, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."
In Acts, it is written, "The Lord opened Lydia's heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying." And in chapter 13, "All who were appointed for eternal life believed." Thus, it is beyond doubt that faith is engendered in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who may indeed be present in those who do not believe, but only as persuading, not sanctifying them. And although into the elect he might suddenly instill faith, since he is the cause of faith, he is therefore prior to it both in dignity and in order.
67. Now let us consider the absurdities Pighius derives from our statement and judgment. He questions, "If the Spirit is the author of our faith, uses the instrument of the Word of God, and may also be
present in those who do not believe, how does it happen that at a single sermon, where both the Spirit is present and the Word is preached, some believe and others do not?" We answer succinctly that this occurs because the Spirit is not equally effective in all individuals; nor does it teach everyone internally and mentally in the same manner. We cannot explain why this is so, though we have no doubt that it is most just.
Pighius then suggests, "If this is the case, the listeners will easily be content and will not exert themselves or make an effort, for they know it is in vain when everything depends on the Spirit of God."
This objection is not only very common but also spiteful. We counter by asserting that everyone is obligated to believe the Word of God; thus, it is their duty to listen attentively and with all their might to assent to it. If they do not, they will then incur the penalties prescribed by the law. They should not be excused if they claim they could not obey it or if they attempt to test their capabilities; their efforts, since they are not yet justified, would be futile and sinful.
Imagine a master commanding his servant, who is lame, to walk; and the servant excuses himself, saying he is lame and cannot walk without difficulty. It is unreasonable to think he is thus excused. We do not believe that all sins are equal; on the contrary, we teach that those who omit or neglect outward actions they could perform, and do not strive to do well, sin far more grievously than those who, within their capabilities, adhere to some external discipline. As Augustine says, "Cato and Scipio will be dealt with more tolerably than Catiline or Caligula."
But let Pighius, who so dislikes our opinion, state when he thinks the Holy Spirit is given to men. He will say it is after these preparations have occurred—when a man has believed, feared, hoped, repented,
and sincerely loved. What else would Pelagius say, as if to believe and to love are products of human strength? He also cites and believes it supports his argument, "Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." He thinks that labors, burdens, contrition, confession, and what they call satisfaction, along with fasting, tears, and the like, contribute to obtaining justification.
However, this passage should be understood differently: Christ calls those who are laboring and laden, who are burdened by the law, aware of their weaknesses and the weight of their sins, and who have long struggled under human traditions. These weary individuals, nearly hopeless, are the ones Christ calls to Him, as they are more suited for the kingdom of heaven than the fortunate and tranquil individuals who consider themselves just through their own works and deeds.
Pighius asserts, "God requires preparatory works, and then He promises not to withhold His grace." This was entirely the view of the Pelagians, which the Holy Scriptures utterly contradict. The Scriptures teach that it is God who gives both the will and the ability to act according to His good purpose; it is God who begins the good work in us and carries it on to completion; it is from God alone that we have sufficiency, as otherwise, we are incapable of conceiving anything by ourselves. Therefore, it is clear that Pighius confuses
God's laws and misrepresents what is well delineated in the Holy Scriptures.
68. Pighius continues his argument, raising questions about what we mean when we say that mere historical faith is insufficient for justification. He wonders if we dismiss all scriptural narratives as merely historical and if we suggest another type of faith for believing things not recorded in the Holy Scriptures. We do not reject historical faith as though we seek new objects of faith beyond what
the Scriptures present or conclusively derive from them. Instead, we distinguish between a mere general or indifferent acceptance, such as that by individuals who acknowledge the scriptural accounts out of human persuasion and probable credibility, similar to how the Jews and Turks today accept many scriptural truths, and a firm, assured, strong assent that comes from the movement and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit transforms the heart and mind, inducing good and holy actions.
This efficacious faith differs significantly from a mere historical assent. We assert that we are justified by this faith, backed by three types of testimony: the first from the Holy Spirit, who bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God; the second from the Scriptures; and the third from works. In contrast, those who argue that man is justified by works lack sufficient evidence: the Holy Spirit does not testify to it, the Scriptures deny it, and only works are cited
—works devoid of godliness and faith, resembling the actions of ancient pagans and many today who do not believe in Christ and are estranged from God.
Pighius also references Isaiah 66, an odd choice as this passage undermines his argument more than any other. God asks, "To whom will I look, but to the one who is poor and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word?" Pighius interprets these words as indicating the works that compel God to justify us. However, this interpretation misses the prophet's intention to condemn the Jews' reliance on external rituals while neglecting true inner godliness. God expresses disdain for their superficial religiosity, emphasizing that He does not value their temple as they do, for He dwells in the vastness of heaven and the earth. He questions the significance of a man-made temple, stating that He has created everything, thereby indicating His preference for faith and inward godliness over external displays.
God defines those who are truly faithful and godly by specific characteristics: the poor who recognize their lack of righteousness, the contrite of heart who feel afflicted in this world, those of a mild and humble spirit rather than the arrogant, and those who receive
God's words with reverence and fear. These traits are clear indicators of genuine faith and godliness. Moreover, the prophet illustrates how
God views the actions of the unregenerate, no matter how impressive they may appear. He equates religious offerings made with impure hearts to committing acts of violence and iniquity—actions commanded by God's law but performed without true devotion, thus considered grave sins.
Thus, Pighius fails to find support in this scriptural passage for his argument. Instead, the very scripture he cites validates our position.
He inadvertently presents evidence that clearly and starkly contradicts his claims, proving himself to be an adept but misguided debater.
69. Pighius also refers to a passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews:
"Anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." From these words, he seems to conclude that justification is granted to those who seek God through good works. However, he should distinguish between those who seek God, as Paul does, noting that some seek Him through works and others through faith. Paul explains this distinction, stating in his letter to the Romans: "Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works." Therefore, those who seek
God, intending to be justified by faith as the apostle teaches, achieve what they desire. In contrast, those who seek justification through works fail to attain it.
We do not deny that God rewards the works performed by regenerate individuals, which propel them toward the crown of eternal salvation. However, this does not pertain to the current debate, which concerns the works performed before regeneration. Pighius attempts to argue that these pre-regeneration works have their reward and can be considered merits of justification to some degree.
However, his assertion that this type of merit does not obligate God to us or equate to the reward given fundamentally negates the very nature of merit. Even after justification, any good deed performed by individuals is not inherently theirs, as it is God who works within them. Moreover, all that we do is already owed to God, and we cannot offer Him anything that isn't already His. Thus, we must dismiss all notions of merit, both for those who are not yet justified and for those who are.
To simplify his argument, Pighius uses the analogy of a master who promises a reward to servants to encourage them to complete a task efficiently and diligently. He asks who would deny that the servants who have promptly and diligently completed their work deserve the promised reward? Let's analyze this analogy. If by "servants" we mean individuals regenerated in Christ, we acknowledge that God offers incentives and rewards to encourage a holy life. We concede that such individuals may receive a reward, but we reject the idea that they truly and properly earn the crown of eternal felicity. Some of our theologians prefer to use the analogy of a father and his children, rather than a master and his servants, to illustrate this relationship. Fathers might conditionally promise gifts to their children—gifts they intended to give freely—to motivate their efforts, such as promising a reward after a child completes a book. Properly speaking, no one would claim that the children have "earned" these gifts; rather, they are given freely and generously by the father.
But Pighius speaks of servants, implying those not yet regenerated. It is puzzling where he finds support for the idea that God offers rewards for the good deeds of such individuals, especially since these deeds, as we have explained, are still sinful and cannot please God.
In reality, such individuals are not promised rewards but face punishment. To clarify further, compare children and servants: children inherit from their father simply by accepting the inheritance, whereas servants, no matter how hard they work, do not share in the children's inheritance. This distinction is so evident it requires no further explanation.
70. Pighius attempts to counter our assertion that requiring works for justification diminishes the honor of Christ, as if Christ's merit alone were insufficient to reconcile us to God. He claims he does not detract from Christ's honor but maintains it fully intact. However, how can he claim to take nothing away when he insists that works are necessary for our justification, and even more, that God regards them more highly than faith? He explains his stance by suggesting that while Christ alone is sufficient as the reconciliator and the sacrifice for our reconciliation with God, we cannot be prepared to receive this benefit without performing many works. I am indeed astonished at the reasoning of such a sophisticated debater. It seems he misunderstands that those whom the Apostle Paul argued against never claimed works were needed as external bases for justification.
They, like Pighius, viewed works as purifications and preparations of the mind.
Moreover, it is evident that if a general proposition is true, it applies to all its specific instances. Thus, when Paul states that a man is not justified by works, he excludes all types of works, regardless of the order in which they are presented. Yet, Pighius contends that God requires these works so that He may freely impute justification to us.
Anyone even minimally versed in the Scriptures can see that this directly contradicts Paul, who writes in his Epistle to the Romans:
"To the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." In contrast, Pighius asserts that God freely imputes righteousness to those who perform works. The contradiction between imputing freely and not imputing freely is clear, even to a child.
Consider this logical dilemma involving two contradictory outcomes.
The works Pighius discusses either contribute to justification or they do not. If they do not contribute, why are they termed preparations?
Preparation implies a causative role. But if he admits they are indeed preparatory and therefore causative, how can he claim to preserve the full honor of Christ as the sole cause of our justification? This argument might similarly be turned against us regarding works that follow justification. One might argue that if such works do not aid in achieving salvation, why are they necessary, and why are promises attached to them? If they are indeed helpful, why do we deny that they possess merit?
We respond that works are beneficial for those who are regenerated; living rightly and orderly, they are renewed and made more perfect, which is an initiation into and a partaking of eternal life. It has pleased God to lead people to eternal bliss through these stages.
However, these works cannot be deemed meritorious because Paul explicitly teaches: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." What is given as a gift excludes the notion of merit. Moreover, we must recognize, as we have often stated, a significant distinction between the works of those still alien to Christ and God and the works of those who, through grace, are grafted into Christ and made His members.
71. Pighius continues to challenge our statement that faith, specifically faith that acknowledges the promises of Christ and the remission of sins, is essential for justification. He questions whether we imply that faith should exclusively correlate with these promises.
He argues that faith should equally regard all elements described in the Holy Scriptures. He believes that believing in God as the creator of the world, in the Trinity, or in the resurrection is equally meritorious as believing in Christ as our mediator and in the forgiveness of sins through Him. Pighius asserts that if we are justified by faith, then faith in other scriptural truths should be equally valid for justification.
He references Paul's writing in Romans chapter four to support his argument, stating, "And not for him alone was it written that righteousness would be credited, but for us also, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our
Lord from the dead." From this, Pighius concludes that the faith credited for righteousness is the belief in God raising Jesus from the dead, not necessarily faith in the forgiveness of sins through Christ.
We acknowledge that our faith indeed assents to all that is contained within the Holy Scriptures. However, among these truths, there is a primary and supreme truth—that Christ, the Son of God, suffered for us so that we might receive forgiveness of sins. Is it surprising, then, that our faith primarily focuses on this truth? This is supported by Paul's statement that "Christ is the end of the law," indicating that He is the ultimate purpose of all Scriptures and thus the central object of our faith. While we embrace all biblical truths, the significance of faith in Christ and His redemptive work surpasses all others.
Regarding the acceptability of faith in various articles, the merit of faith, like that of other qualities, is determined by its objects. As the objects vary in importance, so do the merits of the faith accorded to them. Since God ordained His Son's sacrifice as the means for our reconciliation, this act inherently holds greater value than others and is directed toward this ultimate end. This logical principle suggests that the action or quality that facilitates another's condition or quality is superior. Thus, faith in the supreme truth of Christ's sacrifice and our redemption through Him is inherently more valuable than faith in other doctrines.
Pighius's argument about the varying dignities of faith misses the point; we are not justified by the merit of our faith, as faith itself is weak and imperfect in every person. Rather, we are justified by faith because it serves as the instrument through which we receive Christ and His righteousness. The discussion of faith's worthiness is irrelevant to its efficacy in justification.
Furthermore, Pighius's citation from Romans chapter four is selective and incomplete. A full reading of the passage clarifies that it speaks directly of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins and our justification. Paul explicitly states, "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." This clearly emphasizes that our faith should be in the redemptive act of Christ—
His death and resurrection—as the basis for our forgiveness and justification.
It is troubling that a scholar, especially one who professes theological expertise, would overlook such clear scriptural evidence. This oversight is not just a minor error but a significant misrepresentation of the foundational Christian doctrine of justification by faith.
72. Pighius raises objections about the specific type of faith by which we assert that every true believer in Christ should be fully assured that their sins are forgiven. He denies that such faith exists in the Holy Scriptures, claiming it is merely our invention. Here, I must emphatically state that Pighius is blatantly mistaken. I challenge him to consider what Abraham believed when he was justified if not that the promises of God would one day be fulfilled for him personally.
Who else could Abraham have believed these promises were for, if not himself? The same can be said of Moses, David, and many others who clearly trusted that God's promises made to them would be fulfilled for them personally.
And what about Christ's words to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven," or to the woman, "Your faith has saved you"? And does not Paul speak directly of Christ in relation to himself in Galatians, saying, "Who loved me and gave Himself for me"? These examples explicitly show the personal aspect of faith and forgiveness.
Let Pighius then continue to claim that we have concocted this distinct and unique faith, and let him argue that every Christian should believe that the promises are made only indefinitely and that it is inappropriate for anyone to apply them individually to themselves. We hold that while we may be uncertain about others' faith and whether they believe, as to our own, we can be certain and assured. Let each person believe the promises of God indefinitely regarding others, as we cannot know who is predestined and who is reprobate. However, no one who is faithful should doubt their own standing but should believe that the promise is specific concerning themselves when they perceive true faith within themselves.
Moreover, when promises are presented in general terms, we can assuredly infer their specific application to ourselves. As Christ states
in John, "This is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life." From this, we derive, "But I believe in the Son of God; therefore, I now have, and shall have, what He has promised."
This personal assurance is foundational to our faith and is clearly supported by scriptural testimony, contrary to Pighius's assertions.
73. Pighius continues his argument, using Noah as an example to argue that faith in matters other than Christ and the remission of sins can justify. He claims that Noah was justified by his belief solely in the preservation of his family and the impending destruction of the world, without any reference to Christ or the forgiveness of sins.
However, it appears that Pighius has not considered what Peter writes in his first epistle, third chapter: "In it [the ark] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God." If Peter saw this significance in the ark and Noah's actions, can we assume Noah was unaware? Such a presumption would unfairly diminish his understanding. If Noah grasped what Peter later articulated, then he believed not only in the immediate events but also in the future works of Christ. This aligns with Hebrews, where it is stated that Noah's faith made him an heir of righteousness.
Yet, Pighius dismisses this interpretation. Eager to contradict us, he does not hesitate to challenge even the apostles. He boldly claims that Adam was justified without the faith we describe, which involves the remission of sins through Christ, asserting that no such promise was evident in the Scriptures regarding Adam. However, this view significantly misrepresents biblical teachings and the interpretations of the church fathers. Was it not promised to Eve, and thereby to