Last year at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Denver, Reformed theologian J. V. Fesko offered a historical-theological critique of John Piper’s book, What is Saving Faith? (You can watch the debate here or read it here. Denny Burk offers a short summary here). Fesko argues that Piper fails to understand how the Reformed tradition articulated the relationship between love and faith. That is, according to Fesko, “Piper makes inaccurate appeals to various theologians” and should therefore revise his historical work. Fesko attempts to demonstrate this charge by exploring how Piper uses material from John Calvin, John Owen, Francis Turretin, and Jonathan Edwards.

Now, I wrote my dissertation on this topic and explicitly argued that the way Jonathan Edwards included love in faith was consistent with the Reformed tradition. And given Piper is heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards, I felt the need to carefully consider the charges of Fesko. If Fesko is right, I might need to revise my own work. Therefore, I have revisited what I’ve written, looked at the arguments of Fesko, and re-engaged the Reformed authors as needed. However, I’m not persuaded by Fesko at this point. What I want to offer here are a few responses to Fesko.

In order to show this, I’ll keep these essays shorter and only deal with one theologian at a time. In this post, let’s start with John Calvin. In the next post, we will look at John Owen.

John Calvin and the Nature of Faith

First, Fesko argues that when Calvin says “faith is…a warm embrace of Christ” and “consists in pious affection,” he is referencing sanctifying faith and not justifying faith. Before I say more about this dichotomy, let’s consider the larger context of this Calvin quote to see if Fesko is right.

The specific quote from Calvin is found in the Institutes, Book 3, chapter 2. If we go back to Chapter 1, however, we find that this section of Calvin’s Institutes “treats of the mode of procuring the grace of Christ…” (347, Beveridge edition cited throughout). Calvin argues that “so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us” (348–349). Thus, we must possess Christ if we would be saved. And the way to take hold of Christ is by faith. Furthermore, the faith that unites us to Christ is the “principal work” of the Holy Spirit (351). The beginning of Book 3, then, references faith that unites us to Christ so that we might experience all the blessings he has obtained for us.

Turning to chapter 2, Calvin divides his content into three parts. First, he deals with the object of faith, the Roman Catholic idea of implicit faith, offers a definition of faith, and explores the various meanings of faith. Second, Calvin dives into a deeper explanation of the definition of faith. Third, he looks at biblical texts to confirm his definition and offers thoughts on the relationship between faith, hope, and charity.

The quote offered by Fesko and Piper occurs in the first part of the chapter following his definition of faith in section 7. Here, in section 8, Calvin is busy discussing the Roman Catholic distinction between formed and unformed faith. Importantly, the concern for salvation is at the heart of the matter for Calvin. Calvin writes, “I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen as to formed and unformed faith. For they imagine that person who has no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary to be known for salvation” (emphasis added). As Calvin continues to make his case against Rome, he links the discussion to the doctrine of justification. He quotes Paul, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness” (Rom 10:10). So, in this context it seems we are dealing with salvation and are closely linked to the doctrine of justification.

Furthermore, right before the sentences quoted by Fesko, we read this from Calvin. “There is one consideration which ought at once to put an end to the debate, i.e., that assent itself…is more a matter of the heart than the head, of the affection than the intellect” (3.2.8). Again, the whole thrust here is a faith that saves and is related to union with Christ. There is no inclination that Calvin has raised the idea of a different type of faith.

Calvin indeed mentions sanctification further down. Therefore, Fesko is right to note the presence of sanctification in the larger context. However, the quote offered does not show that Calvin has shifted to merely talking about sanctifying faith and not justifying faith. Look again.

“…they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such at least as the Scriptures describe consists of pious affection. But we are furnished with a still clearer argument. Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification…but also for sanctification…” (3.2.8).

Notice that Calvin does not list two types of faith. Again, he has said since the beginning of Book 3 that faith embraces Christ and all his benefits. There is one faith that takes hold of one Christ and his manifold blessings. Faith receives Christ “not only for justification…but also for sanctification.” This one faith takes hold of Jesus for twin benefits! And this one faith is no bare assent to bare facts but “consists in pious affection.”