Justification: The Calvin-Saumur perspective

Abstract

Focusing attention on the doctrine of Justification, the article seeks to compare and evaluate the ‘New’ (NP) and ‘Old’ (OP) perspectives on Paul. In view of problems encountered in both, a proposed solution to the impasse is derived and argued for from the generally-misperceived stance of Calvin and his legitimate successors among the theologians of Heidelberg and Saumur. In the course of the discussion (in which the little-known insights of the German divines and the long-discredited French academy are rehabilitated), the assumption that recent Anglo-American expositions of the OP accurately perpetuate Calvin’s stance is challenged. Significant differences between Calvin and later Calvinists are exposed during an investigation of the following issues: (1) the precise meaning of ‘justification’, (2) imputed righteousness, (3) the time of justification, (4) the place of good works in the ordo salutis and (5) the status of the sola fide principle. Avoiding the ambiguities of Luther’s version of sola fide, the article concludes on biblical grounds that the authentic ‘Calvin’ (CP) perspective relieves completely the other views of their perplexities.