Calvin's Response to Pighius On Book Four [of Pighius]
In the introduction to his fourth book, Pighius begins with a triumphant declaration, claiming victory over our position. He argues that no one should believe anything based solely on Scripture, no matter how clear it appears, if it contradicts the united teaching of the church or the judgment of the early church fathers. He believes that while individuals may misinterpret Scripture, the church itself cannot err in matters of essential faith because it is the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
This is not a new claim; people throughout history who have opposed the church have often cloaked themselves in its name to gain authority. So, how do we distinguish the true church from the false? Pighius argues that we should rely on numbers, suggesting that the majority defines the true church. Yet, I believe this judgment should be based on God’s Word, as the church is to be recognized by its adherence to Scripture, not by how it presents itself. If the Word of God is unclear, Pighius argues, certainty must come from the church’s interpretation. But Scripture itself is the foundation, and as Paul states, the church is built upon the teachings of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), not on its own authority.
Pighius may counter that the church’s role is to interpret Scripture, but this claim is flawed. When identifying the true church, we should follow Christ’s own rule: His sheep hear His voice (John 10:27). Thus, the church supports the truth only by faithfully guarding the teaching upon which it was founded. We should recognize as the true church only the body that upholds this teaching. The bond between Christ and the church is forged by the truth of His Word, a bond that Pighius tries to break by placing the authority of the church above the authority of God’s teaching, interpreting it as human preference dictates rather than as God delivered it.
Pighius’s approach has another striking contradiction. He initially claims he will prove his argument from Scripture, but then avoids doing so, asserting instead that Scripture as a whole confirms human free will. He argues that, because Scripture teaches that God will judge each person according to their actions and contains laws and commands, it therefore proves the power of free choice.
If Pighius thinks Scripture teaches only about human free will and nothing else, he is missing a foundational part of the faith. He overlooks the essential promises of grace. When God commands us to follow His ways, He also promises to give us the ability to obey—He will provide the heart and strength we need. The law, commands, warnings, and encouragements in Scripture lead us to these promises, showing us that any good in us is solely by God’s grace. Those who judge human ability by the law alone reveal their lack of understanding of the basic principles of faith.
Pighius claims that God’s judgment wouldn’t be fair unless He judged us according to our own merits. To this, Augustine responds, “Woe to the whole human race if God were to judge us by our merits alone!” God indeed promises a reward to His servants, but we must recognize that even the righteousness of the saints is a pure gift from God.
When Pighius’s arguments from Scripture falter, he shifts to the teachings of church fathers like Origen and Tertullian, hoping their authority will lend support to his view. Even if we were to accept their interpretations as binding—which we do not—it’s clear that Pighius misrepresents them. When they say the law would be useless without the power to obey, they are not addressing humanity’s fallen state. Our weakness comes from our own sinful choices, not from how we were originally created. Augustine himself answers these objections, saying that our current inability is due to our own fault, not God’s design.
Pighius also misuses Augustine’s earlier writings to suggest that Augustine believed we cannot be blamed for sins we cannot avoid. Augustine later clarified his views, noting that he revised his writings to reflect his growing understanding. In The Gift of Perseverance, he explains that while humanity fell through free will, the resulting corruption has turned our freedom into a form of bondage to sin. In The Perfection of Righteousness, he says, “Human choice led to sin, but now that choice has been corrupted, and freedom has become a necessity to sin.”
Pighius claims that Augustine supports free choice whenever God commands or encourages us. It’s true that Augustine discusses the connection between grace and free will, aiming to show that God’s grace doesn’t cancel human choice. But to understand Augustine’s view, we need to grasp what he means by "free choice." Augustine is clear that, while people act by their own will, this will is naturally inclined only toward sin. It is grace alone that enables people to do good and persevere in it.
Augustine wrote that he was addressing those who denied free choice because they emphasized grace. He acknowledged that people act of their own accord, but he also warned that we must never defend free choice in a way that denies the need for God’s grace. What Augustine means by free choice is not that we can do good on our own, but that, left to ourselves, we can only sin. God is the source of all the good we do.
Augustine further explains that God’s grace is not a reward for any good in us but is given freely, even when we have no merit. He describes how, when God regenerates us, He prepares the good works we are to do—our good works are not prepared by us but are gifts from God. Augustine also rejects the idea that people can prepare themselves to receive grace; instead, grace begins by removing our "stony heart," which is naturally resistant to God.
Regarding the law, Augustine answers those who argue that God wouldn’t command what we can’t do. He says God commands things beyond our natural ability to show us what we need to seek from Him. In Augustine’s words: “We obey the commands if we are willing, but because God prepares the will, we should pray to Him to help us desire His will. We act when we act, but it is God who gives the will the power to act.”
In conclusion, Augustine insists that God changes our will from evil to good and sustains it. He teaches that God not only holds power over the wills of those who do good but also influences those who resist Him, turning even their hearts according to His purposes. While God does not create evil, He can direct those with hardened hearts toward His goals.
Pighius mocks us, saying we close our eyes to the truth, while in fact, it’s clear that Augustine believed grace transforms and sustains the human will. Augustine did not attribute to free choice the power to do good apart from God’s intervention.
In my Institutes, after explaining our teaching, I addressed the usual arguments of those who oppose it. Now, Pighius tries to show that my responses are weak, incomplete, or irrelevant. He does this by setting up a dialogue where he presents me as a speaker, but he interrupts or alters the conversation whenever it benefits his case.
In Institutes, I had noted that some critics pile up supposed “absurdities” against our teachings, claiming they defy common sense, and then attack with Scripture. I stated that I would respond to both kinds of attacks. In response, Pighius dramatically criticizes my confidence, accusing me of attempting to challenge the revered saints of old.
But I am not at odds with the ancient fathers; my opposition is to Pighius and those like him, who distort and desecrate God’s saving truth, sometimes trampling it underfoot and sometimes tearing it apart with hostility.
If I were to engage with all his excessive words, it would be endless. Instead, I ask readers to stay focused on the main issue. If they do, I will ensure that my answers are complete and clear.
The first “absurdity” Pighius raises is this: “If sin is necessary, then it’s no longer sin; if it’s voluntary, it must be avoidable.” I noted in Institutes that Pelagius once used this argument to challenge Augustine, and Pighius ridicules me for mentioning it. Yet Augustine clearly addressed this very issue in The Perfection of Righteousness. Pelagius’s argument is not new, as Roman Catholic theologians today use it against us just as Pelagius did with Augustine.
In Institutes, I explained that our inability to avoid sin does not absolve us of responsibility. If we were to claim we cannot help but sin, God would answer, as He did to Israel: “Your ruin is your own; only in me is your help” (Hosea 13:9). Our inability to do good stems from the corruption of our nature—a corruption that came because of humanity’s rebellion against God. Since we all share in Adam’s rebellion, the necessity of sinning does not excuse us but is instead the very basis of our condemnation.
Pighius mocks this response, insisting that if God commands something, we must be able to do it freely. He repeats his claim that the law would be meaningless if it demanded what we cannot fulfill and that free will must be capable of both good and evil. But Augustine, who is a faithful interpreter of the fathers, teaches that our inability is a result of our fallen nature—a condition we brought upon ourselves through Adam. Augustine says that this “necessity” of sin is, in fact, a punishment for our sin, which rightly deserves blame.
Pighius also argues that if sin is voluntary, it must be avoidable. I responded by denying that "voluntary" means "free." He tries to use Augustine against me, claiming that Augustine agrees with him everywhere. However, Augustine was clear that while sin is voluntary, it is only avoidable if we are first healed by God’s grace. In our current corrupt state, we are bound to sin, yet it remains our responsibility.
In short, Augustine teaches that sin would indeed be avoidable if we were whole and healthy. But as it is, our nature is corrupted, so we can only avoid sin by God’s grace. Pighius’s arguments fall apart because he refuses to acknowledge this corruption and instead believes that human nature is still capable of choosing good without God’s help.
Coercion and Necessity
Since I’ve often mentioned the distinction between coercion and necessity, which is central to this discussion, let’s look at it more closely. Those who defend free will over grace argue that if something is necessary, it cannot be sinful or virtuous. But we respond by pointing out that God is necessarily good, yet His goodness is no less praiseworthy because it’s unchanging. Similarly, the devil is necessarily evil, yet his wickedness is no less blameworthy.
Pighius tries to counter this by claiming that humans are different from God; he argues that qualities that are “necessary” in created beings do not bring them praise or blame because such qualities are a result of their created nature. He insists that only actions freely chosen bring merit. However, we aren’t saying that necessity negates human responsibility. Rather, we’re showing that necessity and responsibility can coexist, as we see in the unchanging goodness of God, which is worthy of praise.
Pighius also claims that God does nothing out of necessity, only by free will. But this kind of thinking is misguided and borders on blasphemy, as it separates God’s nature from His actions. God’s goodness, wisdom, and power are so united that He wills what He is by nature. His will and His nature are not divided. So, just as God is necessarily good, He also wills to be good, not out of coercion but out of the highest degree of willingness. We might even call it “freedom,” in the sense that it is self-determined.
Pighius also tries to dismiss our example of the devil by saying that his necessity to do evil is a consequence of his original sin, which he committed freely. But this applies equally to humanity. We teach that humanity’s bondage to sin comes from our fallen state, not from our original nature. The difference is that while the devil’s bondage is eternal, humanity has hope of liberation through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Finally, Pighius admits that necessity isn’t incompatible with will in itself but claims it conflicts with the will of those still on earth. He thinks this will help his case, but we see no reason to accept this distinction as valid.
Pighius claims that Augustine only connects necessity with the human will when speaking about “pilgrims” or those still on earth. But Augustine actually speaks of this necessity in reference to Adam before the Fall, a burden which now affects all his descendants. Augustine, Prosper, and Bernard all teach that since the Fall, we are subject to this “yoke of necessity” from which we would otherwise be free.
Let’s define necessity: it is a fixed state in which something cannot be other than it is. For instance, God is good of necessity—His goodness is unchangeable. This necessity doesn’t mean coercion; God freely and willingly is good, but He could not be otherwise. Likewise, the devil is necessarily evil, yet he acts in this way willingly.
This shows that necessity and free will can sometimes coexist. For humans, we are “bad branches from a bad root”—in other words, because we are born in sin, we can only act according to our sinful nature. We cannot turn from evil to good on our own; it’s beyond our power. However, this necessity to sin does not excuse us because it’s rooted in the original, voluntary decision of Adam to disobey God.
Even Aristotle, a pagan philosopher, recognized this: he observed that while a person might be forced into a state (like sickness), he often enters that state willingly. For example, if a person’s poor choices led to illness, he cannot easily cure himself once he’s sick, but his choices at the start made it so. In the same way, when someone throws a stone, they can’t take it back once it’s in the air, but they chose to throw it.
For Christians, this idea is foundational. Adam’s sin corrupted not only himself but also all of humanity. This corruption is now ingrained in our nature, and though we can no longer avoid sin, it remains voluntary because we are born into a state we cannot escape on our own. Therefore, sin, though inevitable for us, is still our responsibility.
The second “absurdity” our opponents raise is this: “Unless virtues and vices come from a freely chosen decision, it wouldn’t be right to punish or reward people.” Before addressing this, I noted that, while this argument originated with Aristotle, it was adopted by theologians like Chrysostom and Jerome. Pighius argues that his view differs significantly from Pelagius, yet this doesn’t change the fact that the Pelagians also used this argument, even if expressed slightly differently.
Pighius also criticizes me for only mentioning two names, as if I was obligated to list everyone who held this view. In truth, I had limited resources available to me when writing, and I mentioned the names I could recall.
Regarding punishment, I respond that it’s rightly applied to those responsible for sin, regardless of whether they sin freely or in bondage, as long as it’s voluntary. Pighius insists that “voluntary” must mean “within our power.” But, like Augustine, I counter that this freedom was only available when our nature was sound, and humanity lost this freedom when Adam misused it.
As for rewards, I argue that they depend on God’s kindness, not on human merit. Pighius dismisses this as blasphemy, saying that rewards imply both service and merit. I agree about service, but if by “merit” he means worthiness, I disagree; if he simply means obedience accepted by God, then I have no issue.
Pighius references Paul’s words about the “crown of righteousness” awarded by the righteous Judge. But, as Augustine says, “To whom could the righteous Judge award the earned crown, unless the merciful Father first gave unearned grace?” We agree that Christian life involves labor and struggle, requiring our full commitment. The question is whether we fight with our own strength or if God supplies the courage, skill, and strength.
Pighius allows only a small role for God’s grace, claiming most of the effort is ours. But I hold that God fulfills His promise to Israel: while we rest in Him, He fights for us (Exodus 14:14). This doesn’t mean we do nothing; rather, we act while being moved by God. We will as He guides our hearts, strive as He strengthens us, and succeed only because He enables us. We are living tools in His hands, while He is the leader and finisher of the work.
The second “absurdity” raised by our opponents is this: “If virtues and vices don’t come from free choice, then it would be improper to punish or reward people.” Before addressing this, I noted that, though this idea originated with Aristotle, it was later adopted by figures like Chrysostom and Jerome, and even used by the Pelagians. Pighius tries to distinguish his view from Pelagius, but this doesn’t change the fact that both use similar reasoning.
Pighius also criticizes me for only citing two names. He seems to expect a full list of every person who held this view, but I only had limited resources at the time. I mentioned the few I could recall.
On the question of punishment, I argue that punishment is justly applied to those responsible for sin, regardless of whether their judgment is free or constrained, as long as it’s voluntary. Pighius agrees but insists that “voluntary” must mean fully within our control. With Augustine, I counter that this freedom originally depended on a sound nature, which humanity lost when Adam fell.
As for rewards, I argue that they depend on God’s kindness, not on human merit. Pighius dismisses this, saying that rewards imply both service and merit. I agree about service, but not about merit—unless he means merit simply as obedience accepted by God.
Pighius brings up Paul’s reference to the “crown of righteousness” given by God. Yet, as Augustine says, “How could the righteous Judge award the earned crown unless the merciful Father first gave unearned grace?” While our Christian journey does involve labor and struggle, the question is whether we strive by our own strength or by God’s provision. Pighius allows only a small role for God’s grace, claiming the greater part is ours. I believe instead that God’s promise to Israel applies to us: while we rest in Him, He fights for us (Exodus 14:14).
This does not mean we do nothing; rather, we act while being empowered by God. We will as He guides us, strive as He strengthens us, and succeed as He enables us. We are living tools in His hands, while He remains the true leader and finisher of the work.
Pighius claims I distort Augustine’s words when I quote him saying, “God crowns His own gifts in us.” But Augustine says this often, making clear that any good in us is from God’s grace. For example, in his letter to Sixtus, Augustine explains that even eternal life, given as a reward for our merits, is still called grace because these “merits” were themselves given to us by God.
Augustine opposed the Pelagians’ idea that only the forgiveness of sins is a gift and taught that the very virtues rewarded by God are also His gifts. Pighius argues that this perspective doesn’t abolish merit but establishes it. In response, I note that while our merits are upheld, they are upheld as works of God’s grace. The Spirit calls us to recognize that it is through God’s mercy—not our own efforts—that we are chosen, called, and justified. Pighius rejects this, claiming God would be unjust if it were true, but this response is merely a slander against the Holy Spirit.
In the third “absurdity” raised by my opponents, they argue: “If good actions are not as much within our power as evil actions, then why do some people fall away from faith and good works, while others persevere?” My answer to this question is simple: the difference is rooted in God’s free choice. Election is the foundation of our calling—not only in its beginning but also in its continuation and completion. This teaching isn’t my own invention; it comes directly from Scripture, as Augustine also frequently taught.
Yet Pighius charges God with cruelty if this is indeed the case. In Institutes, I mention Paul’s teaching that we shouldn’t boast since everything we have, including our faith, is a gift from God (1 Corinthians 4:7). Paul’s point is to eliminate human boasting and merit by showing that everything—even our good works—is due to God’s grace, not our efforts.
Pighius dismisses this, claiming that Paul does not deny free will; instead, he merely states that all we are and have should be attributed to God. Pighius then ridicules my stance, saying that even he agrees that free choice is ultimately a gift from God, and he boasts of this “victory.” But his argument is hollow, avoiding the substance of Paul’s message. Like the ancient heretic Pelagius, he attempts to affirm grace superficially while undermining its true role in salvation.
Pelagius, when confronted, pretended to accept grace by calling it a reward given by God for no prior merit. But as Augustine pointed out, Paul isn’t talking about the grace that simply creates us as humans but the grace that makes us righteous. This distinction is crucial: the grace that renews us and turns us toward God is fundamentally different from the grace that created us. Paul’s teaching shows that these two should be kept distinct. Our fallen nature cannot be repaired by creation alone; it needs the specific, redeeming grace that heals and transforms us.
Pighius, by confusing God’s universal grace in creation with the special grace of regeneration, avoids the real issue. Augustine observed that opponents of grace often hide behind the praise of “natural” human capacities to diminish the importance of God’s transformative work in salvation.
Fourth "Absurdity"
In Institutes, I present a fourth objection often raised by my opponents: “Exhortations, warnings, and criticisms are pointless unless we have the power to obey.” Pighius strengthens this argument by citing several early church writers who made similar points, even including some questionable sources. Tertullian and Irenaeus argued that God would not give us His law if we lacked the ability to obey it freely. But there is an important distinction between the abilities humanity was given at creation and what remains after the fall. Human nature has since been stripped of its original strength and is now in a state of spiritual poverty.
Pighius also enlists the Roman philosopher Cicero to support his view, but this is no help to his argument. The understanding of human nature’s inherited sinfulness and its need for grace was unknown to those like Cicero who relied on human reasoning alone. It’s no wonder that philosophers and orators missed this truth.
In Institutes, I chose to address this question by quoting Augustine’s words from his work Rebuke and Grace. Augustine wrote this book precisely to address similar objections raised against him. Yet Pighius accuses me of wrongly aligning Augustine’s views with mine. How does he defend this accusation? Instead of addressing the relevant argument from Rebuke and Grace, he tries to distract readers by pointing to an unrelated work of Augustine’s, in which Augustine explains that free choice can coexist with grace.
I have already discussed Augustine’s teaching on free choice above, and here we are dealing with a different question. Why did Augustine write Rebuke and Grace? It was precisely to explain how God’s grace operates even though we are unable to follow God’s commands on our own. Rather than address this directly, Pighius distracts from the core issue, offering nothing of real substance.
Pighius gathers several quotes from Augustine’s letters to Valentinus to argue that Augustine condemns both the absolute denial of free choice and any view that separates it from the grace of God. Pighius claims that Augustine takes a "moderate" position, saying that human will is indeed free but needs God’s grace to truly know and do what is right.
I acknowledge that Augustine teaches the importance of both free choice and grace. However, it’s clear that Augustine doesn’t mean free choice in the sense that we can please God without His help. He means that humans possess a will that can choose good or evil, but that this will is inherently corrupt due to sin. It is only by God’s grace that this will is transformed to desire and act in ways pleasing to God. If you still have doubts about Augustine’s position, I urge you to look at his other writings, especially his letter to Sixtus, where he clarifies how limited human choice is without grace.
Pighius then challenges me to prove that Augustine ever faced the objection that commands and exhortations are useless if people lack the ability to obey. In response, I refer him to Augustine’s own writings, where he records similar objections from those who argued that if God works in us "to will and to do," then human commands and rebukes are pointless. These objections were indeed used by opponents to ridicule the teaching of grace.
Pighius claims that such objections would be better directed at my teachings than at Augustine's. I acknowledge that Augustine may not have deserved such criticism, but my point remains valid: Augustine did face these objections, and they reveal the tension people felt toward his teaching on grace. Pighius’s fierce criticism here only serves to showcase his eagerness to win arguments, rather than to carefully understand and engage with the truth.
Now let’s look at how Pighius tries to separate us from Augustine’s views. He claims it would be foolish to teach, warn, or rebuke people if we believe that God, by one decree, extends His healing grace to some (the elect) while leaving others in their sinful state. Pighius argues that Augustine holds an entirely different view. But what does Augustine actually say?
Augustine teaches that all people are born in sin. He explains that rebuke serves a purpose: to stir a desire for change in those who are “children of the promise.” Augustine writes, “By the rebuke that sounds outwardly, God also works inwardly, inspiring a desire for what is good—if the rebuked person is indeed one of God’s chosen.” He makes it clear that true change comes not merely from words or warnings, but from God’s Spirit working in the heart, and that this grace is given only to the elect, not to everyone.
Augustine goes on: “No one can be separated from the fallen mass of humanity unless they receive this gift of grace. Those who are chosen are called by God, not by their own choice but by His decision.” He adds, “God knows who are truly His. Their faith, powered by love, will not fail—or if it does, God will restore them before life ends, counting them as those who persevere to the end. Those who will fall away from faith were never separated by God from the fallen mass and were not chosen or called according to His decision.”
Finally, Augustine says that we, as humans, cannot know who is predestined and who is not, so we must treat everyone with the hope that they may be saved. We should rebuke all, as a form of spiritual medicine, hoping it might save them or prevent them from leading others astray. But, ultimately, it is God who makes the rebuke effective for those He has foreknown and predestined.
Now, it should be clear how unreliable Pighius’s arguments are. Those who speak for hire seem unconcerned with the truth of their claims, as long as they keep talking. Pighius argues that objections against our belief—that God, by His decree alone, grants grace to some while passing by others—apply only to us and not to Augustine. Yet, Augustine speaks about this very issue throughout his writings.
Pighius claims that Augustine encourages people to "learn by the commandment what you should do, learn by rebuke that it’s your own fault if you fall short, and learn by prayer where to find grace" (Romans 3:19-20). He wonders how I, Calvin, could say the same, since I teach that people cannot seek or desire grace until they receive it. However, Augustine repeatedly emphasizes God’s sovereignty in conversion. For example, he says, "Could you be converted unless you were called? If God hadn’t called you when you were fleeing, you could not have returned" (Psalm 84). Augustine also states, “He calls us without our help” and declares that God is able "not only to make the unwilling willing but also to make the rebellious submissive." Augustine speaks this way frequently, which Pighius conveniently ignores.
When I address this criticism in Institutes, I point out that we are not alone in this teaching—Christ and the apostles also stand with us. They consistently show that human efforts are of no use in achieving good unless God enables us, yet they continue to command, encourage, and rebuke. This consistency shows that divine grace does not negate moral instruction; rather, it empowers us to respond.
Pighius mocks my appeal to Christ’s teachings, claiming that Christ would oppose us because He knocks at the door of our hearts and lamented over Jerusalem’s unwillingness to receive Him (Revelation 3:20; Matthew 23:37). Yet, I maintain that even though humanity is unable to respond to God apart from His Spirit, the call to repentance and obedience remains essential. Just because we depend entirely on God’s grace does not remove the need for His commands.
Pighius also tries to use Paul’s writings to show that Paul values free will alongside grace. He points out that Paul acknowledges our willing and our running (Romans 9:16). But if he truly understands Paul, he must also recognize that Paul says, “It is God who works in us both to will and to do” (Philippians 2:13). Both our will and actions are enabled by God’s grace, showing that they don’t rely on our natural ability alone.
Pighius claims that my teaching is so full of contradictions that it would be an endless task to address them all. He begins by presenting what he believes is a clear example of this supposed flaw. I teach that God works in His elect on two levels: outwardly through His Word and inwardly by His Spirit. By enlightening our minds through the Spirit and shaping our hearts to love and pursue righteousness, God makes us a new creation. At the same time, through His Word, He stirs up a desire in us to seek and pursue this renewal. Pighius argues that if the Word comes before the Spirit’s work, it would be ineffective for an unregenerate heart; but if it comes after, it would seem unnecessary, as the believer would already be renewed.
In response, I explain that the Word is preached to those who are already being renewed by God. This preaching is not intended to initiate new birth repeatedly but to strengthen and grow the new life that God has already begun. Christian maturity is a lifelong process, not a single act. Thus, the preaching of the Word continues to have purpose as believers grow and are progressively transformed by God’s grace.
Pighius further objects, claiming that my teaching leaves no room for people to seek God’s Spirit before regeneration. But I answer that while the natural person is indeed blind to God, he can still be convicted by the Word, silencing his arguments against God. Paul himself teaches that “faith comes by hearing” (Romans 10:17), but also makes clear that true faith only arises when God reveals Himself to the heart. The Word, then, is like a seed sown in preaching; yet it only takes root, grows, and bears fruit when the Spirit works inwardly to give it life.
In short, I affirm that God’s Word and Spirit work together in harmony. When the Spirit empowers the Word, He plants in us a desire for renewal. While we cannot dictate when or how God acts, we trust that He brings the Word and Spirit together to transform and mature His people in faith.
Scriptures Quoted against John Calvin
Our opponents often misuse certain Scriptures to argue against our teachings. In The Institutes, I explain how these passages are frequently twisted to convey a meaning that is foreign to their original intent. I organize these scriptures into several categories, beginning with those concerning God’s commandments.
The argument from our opponents goes like this: "If God commands something, then surely we must have the power to fulfill it, or else He is setting us up to fail." To this, I respond that those who measure human ability by the commandments have a poor grasp of Scripture. Pighius and others argue that obedience to the law is possible; they claim this confidently because they have not considered deeply what obeying the law really requires. These so-called defenders of the law are quick to speak of human merit and perfection without having come close to obeying the law themselves, even in part. But if they truly understood what it means to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength" (Deut. 6:5), they would see how impossible it is for fallen humanity to fulfill this command while bound to mortal frailty.
Moreover, our point is not merely that humans cannot fully keep the law; we assert that they are incapable even of making a beginning in keeping it. The simplest aspects of righteousness are beyond human reach without God’s grace, despite the way Pighius and others exalt human abilities.
If anyone doubts this, let them examine their own experience in the faith. Many Christians will find that they cannot, even with their best efforts, produce true righteousness on their own. As Paul teaches, “By the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). When Paul asks if righteousness can be achieved through the law, he answers with a resounding "No," for the law brings only a heightened awareness of sin, not the power to overcome it. If humanity had the ability to keep the law on its own, Paul’s argument would not hold.
In another passage, Paul explains that the law "came in to increase the trespass" (Rom. 5:20). This clearly implies that the law's purpose is not to empower obedience but to reveal sin. So, as Augustine rightly said, "By the law, we hear what God wants us to do; by grace, we are empowered to do it." The law alone produces hearers, but only grace produces doers. In another place, Augustine clarifies, “God’s righteousness is not founded on the law’s commands, which produce fear, but on the aid of Christ’s grace, which alone fulfills the law’s purpose for believers.” Indeed, understanding this truth is at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian.
By this understanding, we affirm that God’s commandments are holy and just, yet we depend entirely on His grace for the strength to fulfill them.
In The Institutes, I address certain arguments that our opponents use against us by distorting Scripture. They argue that if God commands something, we must naturally have the power to obey it, or else the command would be pointless. I respond by pointing out that those who gauge human strength by the commandments misunderstand Scripture. Pighius, for instance, boldly asserts that it is possible to keep the law—a claim he makes only because he has not truly grasped what the law requires. Those who declare that humans can fulfill the law often don’t realize what it actually means to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength” (Deut. 6:5). Such an all-consuming love is far beyond human capacity without divine help.
We affirm, not only that people are incapable of fully obeying the law, but that they cannot even begin to keep it. The smallest acts of genuine righteousness are beyond human strength if left to their own abilities. I do not wish for anyone to accept this based on my words alone; each believer can see this truth in their own experience of faith. Paul testifies that “through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20), not the power to overcome it. He teaches that the law was given “to increase the trespass” (Rom. 5:20), revealing our weakness and showing us that the ability to obey does not come from within us.
As Augustine wisely noted, “The law enables us to hear what God wants, but only grace empowers us to do it.” The law creates hearers of righteousness; grace creates doers. Another passage by Augustine further clarifies: “Righteousness does not come from the law’s commands, which produce fear, but from Christ’s grace, which alone fulfills what the law demands.”
Pighius misinterprets my teaching when I say that the law is given to reveal what we should do, prompting us to ask the Lord for the strength to do it. He claims I contradict myself, arguing that if humans lack the strength to desire grace, then who would pray for it in the first place? I agree that God grants us the spirit of prayer itself. Paul teaches that “faith is the mother of prayer” (Rom. 10:14), so it is God who stirs us to call upon Him. However, God also uses the law as a means to convict and instruct, guiding us toward the grace we so desperately need.
Our opponents further argue that conditional promises in Scripture suggest that we have the power to fulfill these conditions ourselves. They reason that if God makes promises contingent on our actions, then it must be within our power to do what is required to receive these promises. I counter this by explaining that the promises serve different purposes for different people. To the unfaithful, the promises reveal their unworthiness, showing them what they lose by failing to honor God. For believers, the promises inspire a deeper reverence and desire for purity—not from reliance on their own strength, but by depending on the Spirit.
These promises, then, direct people to seek God’s grace, which alone enables us to meet His call. Pighius disagrees, thinking this view makes people dependent on free will. He refers to Moses, who, after giving the law, says, “Today I have set before you life and death” (Deut. 30:19), as if implying that we can choose life of our own ability. Yet Paul teaches that, because of our sinful nature, the law that was intended to bring life leads to condemnation instead (Rom. 7:10).
The law indeed commands us, but we cannot fulfill it on our own. The law promises life to those who obey it fully, yet no one is able to strive after it by their own power. Paul, quoting the law’s requirement to “do this and live,” immediately directs us to Christ as our refuge, that we might receive God’s promises freely by faith and not by works (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:11). Pighius argues that Moses instructs the people to obey “with all their might” (Deut. 30:14), but this command should serve to remind us of our duty and, when we realize our inability to fulfill it, to bring us to pray, “Give what you command, and then command whatever you will.”
In The Institutes, I address another objection raised by our opponents regarding Scripture passages where God rebukes Israel, holding them responsible for their failure to receive His blessings. They argue that such rebukes are unfair if Israel had no power to obey God due to their sinfulness. They ask, "Why are we blamed if we wanted prosperity but could not attain it because sin ruled over us? How can it be just to condemn us for something we couldn't control?"
To this, I respond that blame rightly falls on the human will, corrupted as it is by inherited sin. The root of evil lies in our own hearts, and we cannot shift responsibility elsewhere. We cannot deflect accountability for our sin onto anyone else; the fault remains with us.
Pighius dismisses this response with his usual disdain, then directs his attention to a statement by Moses, where Moses tells Israel that God’s commandment "is not far off, but in your mouth and in your heart" (Deut. 30:14). This seems, at first glance, to imply that they had the power to obey it. I addressed this passage in The Institutes, pointing out that if I had wanted to evade the argument superficially, I could have argued that Moses referred only to their ability to understand the law, not to keep it. But I went on to show, using Paul’s teaching, that this passage ultimately points to the gospel rather than the law.
Pighius tries to refute this by insisting that Moses clearly speaks of the law. I am not surprised he opposes us so fiercely, given his hostility toward the Holy Spirit’s interpretation through Paul. For Paul, inspired by the Spirit, interprets these words in Romans 10:6-8 as referring to the gospel. Paul explains that the law promises life only to those who fully obey its commands, whereas the gospel offers a righteousness freely given by faith. Thus, Paul cites Moses’ words, "The word is not far off," to describe the nearness of the gospel’s promise, calling it “the word of faith.”
Pighius objects, insisting that this text refers strictly to the law, and claims it would be absurd to apply it to the gospel. I agree that Moses spoke these words in the context of the law, but the law itself serves to lead us to Christ. On its own, the law’s commands lead only to condemnation because human nature, corrupted by sin, cannot keep them. That is why Paul, rightly and in line with God’s intent, applies this passage to the gospel, in which the promise is close and accessible, not because we earn it, but because it is offered freely by God.
Pighius, however, claims that God’s commands are "mockery" if given to people who cannot obey due to their hardened hearts. But Paul calls the law a “ministry of death and condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:7-9) precisely because it reveals our inability and shows our need for a Savior. The law brings death unless it is written on our hearts through God’s grace under the new covenant.
After making his claims, Pighius pronounces that he has proven Scripture opposes our teaching. Yet I suggest he might reconsider his arguments more humbly and with a clearer understanding of God’s purpose in the law, which was to lead us to the gospel, showing us our need for the grace of Christ.