law of the giants: nomology in luther versus calvin

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.


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.


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.



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.


37Helmut Thielicke, Theologische Ethik, in website www.presenttruth.com.


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.


45Gonzalez, History, 60.

46Luther, Galatians, 153-154.


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.


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.


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.


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

Hermeneutic,” www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles/horton.CalvinLG.html.

70Williston Walker, Robert T. Handy, David W. Lotz, and Richard A. Norris, A History of the Christian

Church, 4th

ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985), 474.

17

17

Not under the Law

As noted, Calvin differs sharply with Luther regarding not being under law. To him,

Christ abolished the curse of the law–but not its validity, even for believers.71

He sees it as an

“indubitable truth” that the law retains all its authority, ever deserving of respect and obedience72

Although Christians are under obligation to keep the law, this obedience is grace oriented. Thus

the law should liberate rather than enslave the regenerate.73

What of 1 Timothy 1:9, that the law is “not made for a righteous man”? This seemingly

rules out not only the third use of the law but the whole idea of believers being under the law at

all. Calvin’s ingenious explanation applies the text to the elect in their pre-regenerate days.

Under the second use of the law, these yet unsaved can learn to keep the commandments so that

when converted they are “not like mere novices.”74

Thus in one brilliant stroke Calvin not only

manages to maintain teaching that the law is for believers, but he also provides further

justification for expecting unregenerate people to keep God’s law.

To Calvin, being not under the law for Christians includes release from the specific local

strictures of Jewish ceremonial laws. However, as noted, he does consider the principles

underlying the Mosaic strictures as valid and enjoining.

Problems with Law

Calvin’s broad understanding and application of law leave him vulnerable to certain

Scriptures that showcase the “scandal” of the cross. Regarding the John 8 story of the woman

caught in adultery, Calvin fails to acknowledge the extravagant, seemingly reckless mercy

71

Gonzalez, History, 147.

72John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1957), 311.

73Wendel, Calvin, 203.

74Calvin, Institutes, 308.

18

18

shown. To him, Christ’s refusal to condemn the woman was not that He wanted her to escape

punishment, but rather because Jesus was reluctant to make Himself a judge in her case, as with

the brothers disputing over their inheritance.75

This approach to Christian behavior may explain

why some believe Calvin’s writings are deficient in “warm, personal fellowship with Christ.”76

Indeed, to some, the reformer’s manifold and zealous focus on law lends a stern aura to his

religion. “He leaves room for a conception of ‘works’ as strenuous and as effort-demanding as

any claimed by the Roman communion, though very different.”77

Whereas Rome regards

fulfilling the law as a loving friend of God as part of the justification process, Calvin sees

keeping the law not as the essence of God’s saving election but its inevitable result, which

certifies his nomology as authentically Reformed.

CRITICAL COMPARISON

Now we transition into side by side critical comparison of the two Reformation giants. In

terms of style, “Luther is the more original, forcible, genial, and popular; Calvin the more

theological, logical, and systematic, besides being an organizer and disciplinarian. … Luther

inspires by his genius, and attracts by his personality; Calvin commands admiration by his

intellect and the force of moral self-government.”78

Reformation scholar James MacKinnon is

probably correct that Luther could not have authored the Institutes. Calvin is “less mystic, more

logical and lucid, more constructive than Luther” as well as “much more refined and chastened,

much less explosive than that of Luther.”79

So much for style. Let us now compare and contrast their nomology, point by point.

75

Georgia Harkness, John Calvin: the Man and His Times (New York: Abingdon, 1958), 132.

76Harkness, Calvin, 72.

77Walker, Calvin, 415.

78Schaff, History, 738.

79James MacKinnon, Calvin and the Reformation (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962), 218-219.

19

19

Law and Gospel

I believe their most basic difference over nomology is that Calvin sees law as a stimulus

to piety, whereas Luther sees law as a stimulus to sin. Yet Luther himself has a high respect for

God’s law, which explains his passion for to escape its condemnation and strictures and find

refuge in gospel grace and liberty. I believe with Luther that God calls us to live free in the Spirit

without obsessing in the bondage of the letter, worried about straightening out our shortcomings.

After all, even the most faithful saints remain lifelong sinners falling short of God’s glorious law

(Rom. 3:23).

So we see in Romans a dialectic relationship between law and gospel, a theme throughout

the Pauline epistles but less so in the general epistles, particularly James–famously Luther’s

“epistle of straw.” Calvin seems to overlook the Pauline dialectic in his zeal to see law in a

complementary relationship to the gospel. Indeed, Jesus did christianize the law, as I illustrate

here by adapting to that context two well-known verses from Palm 119:

Verse 45: “And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.”

Christianized version: “And I will walk at liberty, for I seek Jesus.”

Verse 47: “And I will delight myself in Your commandments, Which I love.”

Christianized version: “I will delight myself in Jesus, whom I have loved.”

The law is indeed transformed when accommodated through Calvin’s Christ-centered

hermeneutic.

Nature of Law

Calvin’s three fundamental principles provide insight into God’s law, and his

employment of synecdoche is ingenious. The law does more than forbid sin; it commands us to

love one another–yet only in the context of having been forgiven. Calvin understood and

faithfully taught this. However, with his overwhelming and all-encompassing ethical emphasis,

20

20

grace in practical terms sometimes suffers. Love is wonderful to receive, less so when one is

expected to provide it diligently and incessantly amid constant divine surveillance. In my

opinion, Calvin’s nomology analyzes love, whereas Luther’s stimulates it.

Both Reformers frame the law in the context of love, but Calvin has a broad and deep

concept of the law’s eternal principles that Luther lacks. Yet Luther’s nomology I find more

liberating.

Obedience to Law

I think Luther clearly transcends Calvin here, reveling in the freedom of grace. Perhaps

Calvin, the erudite humanist, could not appreciate God’s grace on a “gut level” in the same

manner as did Luther, the formerly perplexed via moderna/via mystica monk. Thus Calvin’s

obedience seems calibrated and calculated, while Luther, paroled from his guilt, dances with

David before the Lord with all his might. While Calvin teaches the importance of gratitude

(which can be a legalism of itself, like any other kind of expectation), Luther’s nomology

provides believers much more for which to be grateful.

Unquestionably, someone looking for loopholes will find them much easier in Luther

than Calvin. Luther had to patch holes in the hull of his good ship Grace when the antinomian

radicals hijacked his rallying cry: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” I think some of

Luther’s correctives come too little, too late. Nevertheless, a set-free Lutheran may have a lot

more to be happy about in this life than a Calvinist pursuing elusive spiritual utopia.

Sabbath

The Sabbath commandment may be the nadir of nomology for both reformers. Both see

the seventh day as a Judaistic relic. Luther merely dismisses the Sabbath as an outdated Mosaic

ceremonies, whereas Calvin goes a step further by reframing it in the context of asceticism.

Seemingly illogically, he acknowledges the Sabbath’s rest principle but then interprets it as an

expression of self-denial.

21

21

Although having no use for the seventh day, both reformers acknowledge that a Sabbath

day should be set aside for corporate worship and teaching.

Usage of Law

I suggest that both Calvin and Luther have strengths and weaknesses in their usage of

law. Together they stress the function of law in bringing conviction to sinners and causing them

to flee for mercy through Christ. Luther is particularly strong here. The reformers’ shared

concept of God’s law enforced in civil society seems problematic–especially for Calvin, who

involved himself with the societal implications of divine law while Luther focused more on its

function within soteriology. Calvin’s government in Geneva was commendable in many ways,

except that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17). Luther appreciated and

taught this freedom much better than Calvin did.

I think Calvin is mistaken in regarding the law as a stimulus for behavior. The love of

Christ compels us (2 Cor. 5:14). It appears illogical for him to apply 1 Timothy 1:9 to the pre-

regenerate elect, expecting them to obey God before they are saved. This starts people off on the

wrong foot with the wrong motive for obedience, and they may never recover from a life of

legalism. By contrast, God’s way is that the same grace which provides salvation also teaches us

to obey (Titus 2:11-14).

So here I think we have a serious flaw in Calvin’s nomology. I speak from personal

experience. Long ago as a new believer, I often wished I did not need to obsess my faith with

legal behavior. I wanted to simply cultivate an authentic and trusting relationship with God,

obeying freely in the Spirit rather than worrying about the letter. Luther would encourage me in

this, whereas Calvin might raise his eyebrows. I now regard the law more as Luther did, not as a

guide or stimulus for obedience but as its test.

Consider the marriage covenant, compared in Scripture to the salvation covenant. A

healthy marriage features freedom from constant surveillance and admonishment to fulfill the

sacred covenant vows. Liberty always has its risks, but even the potential for abuse itself

22

22

provides evidence of trust in a healthy, secure relationship. Switching metaphors: One test of

genuine juice is that it carries the risk of fermentation. Grape juice can be fermented; Gatorade

cannot. The fact that Luther’s nomology could be fermented into antinomianism is not an

argument against its legitimacy but rather an indication of appropriate gospel freedom.

Under the Law

Calvin limits “not under the law” to its curse and condemnation, whereas Luther

understands that more is involved. Paul asks: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do

you not hear the law?” (Gal. 4:21). Nobody desires to be under condemnation. Even the most

strident behaviorist only wants to live under the authority of the law, not the guilt of it. And that

is exactly what Paul is saying we are free from.

Romans 7:1-3 is further evidence that being under the law means fundamentally being under

its authority, or dominion. Does this sanction antinomianism? No, Paul says we are set free from

the law to bear fruit for God (verse 4); we are released to serve God, not indulge the flesh (verse

6)–but we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code. (And it is

here that Calvin’s christianized concept of the law works very well; e.g., regarding the Sabbath

in the context of gospel rest instead of a 24-hour legal tightrope stretched across the end of the

week to perform before God.) Paul safeguards his nomology by teaching that although we are

not under the law–neither are we without law toward God, but we are under law toward Christ (1

Cor. 9:21). So then we live under submission to Christ, not under submission to the law; yet this

life in Christ is not a life without the law because relational love for Jesus is its fulfillment.

So Luther’s nomology in not being not under the law is seems both more Scriptural and

reasonable than Calvin’s, and also more freeing and joyous.

Problems with Law

Luther’s nomology, despite its magnificent freedom, seems to lack a consistent balance

between the privileges and the imperatives of the gospel. His frequent and colorful antinomian-

23

23

sounding rhetoric betrays his true regard for God’s law. Perhaps he deserved his conflicts with

the likes of Agricola. Nevertheless, without those battles, he may not have finally closed his

theological loopholes in affirming the law as having continuing value for the Christian–not just

as a reminder of sinfulness so as to keeping trusting in Christ, but also as a test of authentic

obedience.

Never, however, is the law a guide or stimulus, as Calvin teaches. The Genevan’s deep

conception of the law with its broad implications is tarnished by his unrelenting and perhaps

even oppressive strictures. Upright need not mean uptight.

CONCLUSION & SUMMARY

In summarizing the similarities and differences in nomology between Calvin and Luther,

I call attention to one occasion when Luther bombastically exclaims: “All who rely on Moses

will go to the devil—to the gallows with Moses!”80

Calvin might raise his hand in protest:

“Leave my friend Moses alone! Attack him over my dead body.”

We adjourn this study with a glimpse at the personal relationship between Luther and

Calvin. Despite their differing theologies, personalities, nationalities and ages–and the rivalry of

their followers–there reigned a mutual respect between the two. Calvin unlike Zwingli frankly

acknowledged his debt to Luther81

and even esteemed him above the Swiss reformer from whom

he had partially derived his theological heritage. But Calvin did lament the “vehemence of

Luther’s natural temperament” and commented with gentle sarcasm about the German’s

tendency to “flash his lightning . . . upon the servants of the Lord.82

But the German reformer spared Calvin his thunderbolts. Despite sharp differences in

nomology, he “never said one unkind word” of Calvin and even dispatched Melanchthon to

80

H. G. Haile, Luther: An Experiment in Biography (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 229.

81MacKinnon, Calvin, 216.


24

24

complement him on his answer to Sadolet.83

The Genevan returned greetings with a letter in

which he addressed the German as “my much respected father.”84

He expressed the wish that he

might enjoy for a few hours the happiness of his society, though it was impossible on earth.

Oh, but there is an eternity in heaven. Meanwhile, may the millions today who derive

their theological heritage from those two Reformation giants, whether in name or only in faith,

also share their collegiality and mutual respect to the glory of God, while sustaining their

unexcelled tradition of spiritual scholarship.

83

Schaff, History, 659.


25

25

REFERENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Althaus, Paul. The Ethics of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1972.

Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert. C. Schultz. Philadelphia:


Armstrong, William Park, ed. Calvin and the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980.

Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1988.

Brinsmead, Robert. “Lutherans in Crisis over Justification by Faith,” part 5: “Need for a

Covenantal Framework,” http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLVI/46-2p5.htm

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957.

Calvin, John and Martin Luther. Reform Appeals of Luther and Calvin. Compiled by Kenneth A.

Strand. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-Brumfield, 1974.

Dowey, Edward A., Jr. The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1952.

Duffield, G. E., ed. John Calvin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1966.

Farley, Benjamin W., ed. John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 1980.

Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought. Vol 3, rev. ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon,

1975.

Greengrass, M. and G. R. Potter. John Calvin. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.

Haile, H. G. Luther: An Experiment in Biography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980.

Harkness, Georgia. John Calvin: the Man and His Times. New York: Abingdon, 1958.

Hart, H. Michael. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, rev. ed.

Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group, 1992.

26

26

Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. The Protestant Reformation. New York: Harper, 1968.

Holl, Karl. The Cultural Significance of the Reformation. New York: Living Age Books, 1959.

Horton, Michael S. “Calvin and Law-Gospel Hermeneutic.” Alliance of Confessing

Evangelicals, 1995. http://www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles/horton.CalvinLG.html

Keesecker, William F. A Calvin Treasury. New York: Harper, 1961.

Kerr, Hugh T., ed. Calvin’s Institutes: A New Compend. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox

Press, 1989.

Kerr, Hugh Thomson, Jr., ed. A Compend of Luther’s Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster,

1943.

Kiessling, Elmer Carl. The Early Sermona of Luther and Their Relation to the Pre-Reformation

Sermon. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1935.

Landeen, William M. Martin Luther’s Religious Thought. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press,

1971.

Lull, Timothy F. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Luther, Martin. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 2d ed. Translated by

Theodore Graebner. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol. 21. Lectures on Romans. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St.

Louis: Concordia, 1956.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol. 25. Lectures on Romans. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. St.


Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Luther, Martin. Small Catechism. St. Louis: Concordia, 1943.

Luther, Martin. What Luther Says: An Anthology. Vol. 2. Compiled by Ewald M. Plass. St.


Luther, Martin. Works of Martin Luther: The Philadelphia Edition. Vol 3. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 1982.

MacKinnon, James. Calvin and the Reformation. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 2d ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997.

27

27

McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

McKim, Donald K., ed. Readings in Calvin’s Theology. 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.

“The Merits of Christ and the Work of the Holy Spirit,” http://www.presenttruthmag.co.

Niesel, Wilhelm. The Theology of Calvin. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1956.

Nixon, Leroy. John Calvin, Expository Preacher. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1950.

Parker, T. H. L. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Edinburg: Oliver & Boyd, 1969.

Partee, Charles. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1977.

Placher, William C. Readings in the History of Christian Theology. Vol 2. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1988.

Rudolph, Erwin Paul. The Martin Luther Treasury. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia:


Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 7. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1910.

Sennett, Richard. The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton, 1998.

Stackhouse, Max, et al. On Moral Business. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

Toppe, John. “The Law is Needed for Homo Peccator: The Third Use of the Law in Light of

Antinomianism.”

http://www.wls.wels.net/publications/theologia/vol1no1/topplawpap/topplawpap.htm

Torrance, T. F. Calvin’s Doctrine of Man. London: Lutterworth, 1952.

“Using the Third Use: Formula of Concord VI and the Preacher’s Task,” Semper Reformanda

website. http://members.aol.com/SemperRef/thirduse.html

Wallace, Ronald. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959.

Walker, Williston, Robert T. Handy, David W. Lotz, and Richard A. Norris. A History of the

Christian Church, 4th

ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985.

Walker, Williston. John Calvin: The Organiser [sic] of Reformed Protestantism. New York:

Schocken Books, 1906.

28

28

Wendel, Francois. Calvin: His Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Translated

by Philip Mairet. New York: Harper, 1950.

Willis, E. David. Calvin’s Catholic Christology. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1966.

law of the giants: nomology in luther versus calvin

Documents