John Calvin: Regeneration as Process?

"Wherefore, in regard to the whole process of regeneration, it is not without cause we are called God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2:10).  -- John Calvin,  Book III:3:21

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997).

"As spiritual death is nothing else than the alienation of the soul from God, we are all born as dead men, and we live as dead men, until we are made partakers of the life of Christ,—agreeably to the words of our Lord, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25.)"

"The Papists, who are eager to seize every opportunity of undervaluing the grace of God, say, that while we are out of Christ, we are half dead. But we are not at liberty to set aside the declarations of our Lord and of the Apostle Paul, that, while we remain in Adam, we are entirely devoid of life; and that regeneration is a new life of the soul, by which it rises from the dead."  --  John Calvin.  

Commentary on Ephesians 2:1.


Someone in Facebook posted the following comment by their pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:

As my Pastor explains:

Regeneration, as it is currently used, does properly refer to the initial act of the Spirit whereby one who is spiritually dead is made alive. It is also called effectual calling (WCF 10). Early reformers like Calvin used the term in a broader sense (including sanctification). “Conversion” is the term I argue that should be used to refer to that lifelong process whereby we are conformed into the image of Christ.

There is clearly a refinement in categories that goes on in Church history. Calvin, being early in the reformation, used the term in a broad sense. The later Arminian controversy helped refine what we confess concerning effectual calling/regeneration. It’s not that Calvin would have disagreed, it’s that he didn’t wrestle with that topic. It’s perfectly fine to point out his historical use of that term and to recognize what he meant by it. I think “conversion” is the term we need to reclaim in its historical use because it has been misused in the last few centuries.

There are at least two problems immediately evident by this pastor's commentary on Calvin.  First, although it is true that Calvin sometimes refers to regeneration as a lifelong process, Calvin is ambiguous here because he clearly says that the initial and effectual calling of the elect is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.  It is therefore misleading to say that Calvin taught that regeneration broadly included repentance, conversion and sanctification.  What Calvin says in the context of the passage is that God initiates regeneration as the supernatural intervention of God whereby God calls the elect to saving faith and He hardens the hearts of the reprobate.  This is equal ultimacy.  God decrees both election and reprobation and then works out both election and reprobation by secondary and proximate causes in His providence.  This is what distinguishes Christian occasionalism from Islamic occasionalism since Islam does not accept secondary causation or proximate causation. The following full quote I am using from the Henry Beveridge edition of the Institutes is not the same one quoted by the person in Facebook but this one is a better illustration of their pastor's contention that Calvin confused effectual calling with sanctification:

21. Moreover, that repentance is a special gift of God, I trust is too well understood from the above doctrine to require any lengthened discourse. Hence the Church323 extols the goodness of God, and looks on in wonder, saying, “Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life,” (Acts 11:18); and Paul enjoining Timothy to deal meekly and patiently with unbelievers, says, “If God per adventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,” (2 Tim. 2:25, 26). God indeed declares, that he would have all men to repent, and addresses exhortations in common to all; their efficacy, however, depends on the Spirit of regeneration. It were easier to create us at first, than for us by our own strength to acquire a more excellent nature. Wherefore, in regard to the whole process of regeneration,D65 it is not without cause we are called God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2:10)324 Those whom God is pleased to rescue from death, he quickens by the Spirit of regeneration; not that repentance is properly the cause of salvation, but because, as already seen, it is inseparable from the faith and mercy of God; for, as Isaiah declares, “The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” This, indeed, is a standing truth, that wherever the fear of God is in vigor, the Spirit has been carrying on his saving work. Hence, in Isaiah, while believers complain and lament that they have been forsaken of God, they set down the supernatural hardening of the heart as a sign of reprobation. The Apostle, also, intending to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, states, as the reason, that it is impossible to renew them to repentance (Heb. 6:6); that is, God by renewing those whom he wills not to perish, gives them a sign of paternal favor, and in a manner attracts them to himself, by the beams of a calm and reconciled countenance; on the other hand, by hardening the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven, he thunders against them.

John Calvin.  Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Translated by Henry Beveridge.  5th edition, 1599. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997).  Book III:3:21.


As the reader can clearly see in the full context, although Calvin does say that regeneration is a process, the context shows that regeneration in the more strict sense refers to God's absolute sovereignty in salvation from beginning to end.  It is God who works on the passive soul to raise the soul to new life and it is God who causes the elect to persevere in faith until the end.  God is able to complete what He began.  It is therefore completely misleading to assert by a blanket statement that Calvin did not distinguish between the effectual call and the life of continual repentance and sanctification as a process.  Even repentance is initiated by the sovereign grace of God even if the Christian is obligated to repent daily through their lifetime.

The second problem is the same as the first essentially.  Although conversion is a one time event where the person makes a decision to believe in Jesus Christ, it is also a lifelong commitment to being continually renewed and converted to Christ as a process.  The believer is saved.  The believer is being saved.  And the believer will be saved in the final judgment.  Clearly this pastor should have clarified himself instead of making a sweeping generalization in regards to Calvin's theology. As you can clearly see in the above quotation, Calvin said that God's sovereignty over salvation even extends to the voluntary apostasy of the reprobate who at one time appeared to be a solid believer.  Moderate Calvinists do not like the term equal ultimacy but the Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over both election and reprobation without Himself being the immediate or direct cause of evil.  Man is the author of his own sins even if God decreed their destruction in timeless eternity:

. . .on the other hand, by hardening the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven, he thunders against them. This kind of vengeance the Apostle denounces against voluntary apostates (Heb. 10:29), who, in falling away from the faith of the gospel, mock God, insultingly reject his favor, profane and trample under foot the blood of Christ, nay, as far as in them lies, crucify him afresh. Still, he does not, as some austere persons preposterously insist, leave no hope of pardon to voluntary sins, but shows that apostasy being altogether without excuse, it is not strange that God is inexorably rigorous in punishing sacrilegious contempt thus shown to himself. For, in the same Epistle, he says, that “it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame,” (Heb. 7:4–6). And in another passage, “If we sin willingly, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment,” &c. (Heb. 11:25, 26). There are other passages, from a misinterpretation of which the Novatians of old extracted materials for their heresy; so much so, that some good men taking offense at their harshness, have deemed the Epistle altogether spurious, though it truly savors in every part of it of the apostolic spirit. But as our dispute is only with those who receive the Epistle, it is easy to show that those passages give no support to their error. First, the Apostle must of necessity agree with his Master, who declares, that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” “neither in this world, neither in the world to come,” (Mt. 12:31; Luke 12:10). We must hold that this was the only exception which the Apostle recognized, unless we would set him in opposition to the grace of God. Hence it follows, that to no sin is pardon denied save to one, which proceeding from desperate fury cannot be ascribed to infirmity, and plainly shows that the man guilty of it is possessed by the devil.

John Calvin, Ibid.  Book III:3:21

The person who commits apostasy from the faith and is determined in that unbelief is committing the unpardonable sin and the proof is that they are never brought to repentance.  Calvin goes so far as to say that these determined apostates are possessed by the devil.

But to conclude, the OPC pastor was wrong to say that Calvin never wrestled with that topic, meaning the Arminian spin on regeneration and conversion.  But that is so obviously wrong because in fact Calvin did debate the semi-pelagianism of the Roman Catholic Church and it is clearly true that the Arminians agree with the Roman Catholic Church on the semi-pelagian view of salvation.  Calvin, on the other hand, is uncompromising in his insistence that salvation is all of God's grace from beginning to end.  Calvin clearly does not say that regeneration is merely synergistic cooperation of the human will with God's prescribed will as the Arminians and the Papists insist.  No, Calvin identifies the sovereignty of God as the initial cause of men being brought to saving faith and the sovereignty of God keeps the elect in the faith during their lives and all the way to the end.

Calvin clearly understood that regeneration was literally a resurrection from spiritual death and he specifically says so in his commentary on Ephesians 2:1:

As spiritual death is nothing else than the alienation of the soul from God, we are all born as dead men, and we live as dead men, until we are made partakers of the life of Christ,—agreeably to the words of our Lord, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:25.)

The Papists, who are eager to seize every opportunity of undervaluing the grace of God, say, that while we are out of Christ, we are half dead. But we are not at liberty to set aside the declarations of our Lord and of the Apostle Paul, that, while we remain in Adam, we are entirely devoid of life; and that regeneration is a new life of the soul, by which it rises from the dead. Some kind of life, I acknowledge, does remain in us, while we are still at a distance from Christ; for unbelief does not altogether destroy the outward senses, or the will, or the other faculties of the soul. But what has this to do with the kingdom of God? What has it to do with a happy life, so long as every sentiment of the mind, and every act of the will, is death? Let this, then, be held as a fixed principle, that the union of our soul with God is the true and only life; and that out of Christ we are altogether dead, because sin, the cause of death, reigns in us.

John Calvin and William Pringle. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), pp. 219–220.

It is of course true that since the time of the Protestant Reformation much more theology has been deduced from Scripture which confirms that the doctrines of sovereign grace are revealed by God in the propositional revelation of God's written word, the Holy Scriptures.  (WCF 1:6).  It is also true that Reformed theologians since the time of Calvin have more fully developed Calvin's theology and the implications of it.  What is not true is to make a blanket statement like the one above that Calvin interpreted regeneration as the whole Christian life as if that is all Calvin said on the matter.  I think that position smacks of the Federal Vision heresy, which despite the denials of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church officials, is a problem in both the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and in the OPC.

My apologies to anyone I may have offended by my opposition to the ambiguous statement made by their pastor.  However, I think this is not an issue to be taken lightly, particularly since many Reformed churches are under attack from within by the proponents of the Federal Vision heresy and from within by broad Evangelicals who wish to downplay the doctrines of sovereign grace.

The peace of God be with you,

Charlie

John Calvin Admonishes Roger Olson's Attack on God's Goodness

You yourself, however, will one day find, to your sorrow, how abhorrent a crime it is to trifle and lie in this manner concerning the secret mysteries of God! And that you may clearly understand that you are not dealing with me in this your war against the truth, but with the supreme judge of heaven Himself, whose tribunal, you may be assured, you can never escape, ....  -- John Calvin

Roger Olson, the heresiarch Arminian and promoter of Open Theism, often calls the God of the Bible a monster when he is debating Calvinists.  Olson selectively reads Scripture and cuts out the hard verses against his position or uses massively revisionist exegetical presuppositions to explain away the plain meaning of the text.  Here the late John Calvin completely annihilates Olson's arguments:

"You yourself, however, will one day find, to your sorrow, how abhorrent a crime it is to trifle and lie in this manner concerning the secret mysteries of God! And that you may clearly understand that you are not dealing with me in this your war against the truth, but with the supreme judge of heaven Himself, whose tribunal, you may be assured, you can never escape, listen to that which Job testifies--and certainly under none other influence than the inspiration of the Holy Spirit--that the doings of Satan, and of the robbers who plundered him, were the works of God Himself. And yet Job never, in the extremest idea, charges God with sin. No such most distant intimation is found in the patriarch. On the contrary, he blesses God's holy name for what He had done by Satan and by these robbers (Job 1:21). So also when the brethren of the innocent Joseph sold him to the Ishmaelites, the deed was evidently a most wicked one. But when Joseph ascribes this to God as His work, so far is he from imputing sin to God, that he considers and lauds His infinite goodness, because that, by this very means, He had given nourishment to his father's whole family (Genesis 45:1-28.). "

-- John Calvin, The Secret Providence of God.

http://www.the-highway.com/Calvin2_sectionIII.html

John Calvin on Peace and Evangelical Fellowship

"The kind of peace that men seek will always be under God’s curse if he is not acknowledged or praised as he deserves, or if his Word is not kept in all its purity, for that ought to be the knot of our bond."  -- John Calvin

Peace and friendship amongst men is a wonderful thing. This is the truth, and we ought to pursue these things with all our strength. At the same time, however, God’s truth ought to be so precious to us that even if we had to set the whole world on fire in order to promote it, we would be only too willing to do so! Yes, as far as we can, we are to seek peace. If only we ourselves and our possessions are at stake, let us endeavor to be at peace with our enemies and to tolerate them, seeking to win them by our patience. This is what pursuing peace entails. However, if God’s truth is being ignored or misused, this no longer applies. The kind of peace that men seek will always be under God’s curse if he is not acknowledged or praised as he deserves, or if his Word is not kept in all its purity, for that ought to be the knot of our bond. If we wish to please God, and if we want all things to work together for our good, surely it is God who must bind us together, Indeed, he has given us his Son, whom he calls “our peace” so that we all surrender ourselves to him (Ephesians 2:14). Therefore, if we desire to have a true and holy peace, we must return to this point: we must yield ourselves in obedience to the Son of God as our Head, we being one body, for there is only one church. But if others are enticing us away from the Lord Jesus Christ, rather than accepting peace on such terms we should prefer to suffer all the rage, fury and hatred of this world against us. Let us not fear the reproaches of men.

- See more at: Trinity Review: The Infiltration Which Corrupts the Truth of the Gospel

Trinity Review: The Infiltration Which Corrupts the Truth of the Gospel

The following is the newest release of the Trinity Review, a theological newletter.  The article is a sermon by John Calvin and is a commentary on a passage from the apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians.

Click here to read the Trinity Review article:  The Infiltration Which Corrupts the Truth of the Gospel.

John Calvin Against Pighius: God Does Not Desire the Salvation of All Men

Let our readers hence gather how much religion and conscience Pighius has in dealing with the holy Scripture! He then adds, from the Psalm, "The Lord is good to all" (Psalm 145:9; cxlv. 9), from which he concludes that, therefore, all were ordained unto eternal life. Now, if this be true, the kingdom of heaven is open for dogs and asses!   --  John Calvin

Pighius contends that men were so immediately created unto salvation that no counsel of God concerning the contrary event, namely, his destruction, preceded his creation. As if the Lord did not foresee before man was created what his future condition would be! And as if He did not afore determine what it was His will should be done! Man, that he might be the image of God, was adorned from the first with the light of reason and with rectitude of nature. Therefore (as our opponent would reason), God being (to speak reverently) blind, foresaw not all events, but waited in doubt and suspense for the issue of those events! Such is Pighius theological reasoning! Such are the antecedents and consequents of his logic! Hence he boldly concludes, from his view of the end of man's creation, that God so disposed the creation of all men that they should all, at their creation, be made (without distinction, difference, or discrimination) partakers of His goodness and blessedness. But godly minds can by no means whatever be brought to reconcile God's election and reprobation of men thus. They cannot harmonise by such carnal reasoning the voluntary sin of man and the eternal purpose of God. They cannot see, with these human eyes, how it was that man should be placed in that condition when first created, that he himself, falling by his own will, should be the cause of his own destruction; and yet that it was so ordained by the secret and eternal purpose of God that this voluntary destruction to the human race, and to all the posterity of Adam, should be a cause for the saints humbling themselves before God, and worshipping His eternal purpose in the whole. For, although it pleased God thus to ordain the whole, yet man did not the less willingly, on his part, hurl himself into this headlong ruin, who, nevertheless, had been endued with an upright nature, and had been made in the image of God. But I would repeat my being perfectly aware how much absurdity and irreconcilable contradiction these deep things seem to profane persons to carry with them. Nevertheless, let one conscience suffice us in the place of a thousand such witnesses. To which conscience, if we duly listen, we shall be ashamed not to confess that man perished justly, seeing that he chose rather to follow Satan than God!

But let us now hear Pighius' PROOFS of his above views, arguments and conclusions. In these he labours to shew that salvation was ordained for all men without distinction or difference. "If it were not so (he says), the Holy Spirit speaks falsely when He declares that God is the Father of all men" (Malachi 2:10; Mal. ii. 10). The prophet is there treating of marriage, the faith of which many husbands, at that time, violated. Malachi is reminding such violators that God is the avenger of conjugal infidelity. Let our readers hence gather how much religion and conscience Pighius has in dealing with the holy Scripture! He then adds, from the Psalm, "The Lord is good to all" (Psalm 145:9; cxlv. 9), from which he concludes that, therefore, all were ordained unto eternal life. Now, if this be true, the kingdom of heaven is open for dogs and asses! For the Psalmist is not magnifying that goodness of God only which He shews to man, but that also which He extends to all His works. But why should not Pighius thus fight for his brethren?

Calvin's Calvinism, Section III

John Calvin Quote of the Day: Free Election of God Versus Common Grace

Let those roar at us who will. We will ever brighten forth, with all our power of language, the doctrine which we hold concerning the free election of God; seeing that it is only by it, that the faithful can understand how great that goodness of God is, which effectually called them to salvation.  --  John Calvin

But how shall he be humble, who will not hear of the original sin and misery from which he has been delivered? And who, by extending the saving mercy of God to all, without difference, lessens, as much as in him lies, the glory of that mercy?

 EPG   PAGE 12

Those, most certainly, are the farthest from glorifying the grace of God, according to its greatness, who declare, that it is, indeed, common to all men; but that it rests effectually in them, because they have embraced it by faith. The cause of faith itself, however, they would keep buried, all the time, out of sight; which is this;   --that the children of God, who are chosen to be sons, are afterwards blessed with the spirit of adoption. Now, what kind of gratitude is that, in me, if, being endowed with so pre-eminent a benefit, I consider myself no greater a debtor than he, who hath not received one hundredth part of it.   Wherefore, if, to praise the goodness of God worthily, it is necessary to bear in mind, how much we are indebted to Him; those are malignant towards Him, and rob Him of His glory, who reject, and will not endure, the doctrine of eternal election:   which being buried out of sight, one-half of the grace of God must, of necessity, vanish with it. Let those roar at us who will. We will ever brighten forth, with all our power of language, the doctrine which we hold concerning the free election of God; seeing that it is only by it, that the faithful can understand how great that goodness of God is, which effectually called them to salvation.

Calvin, John (2011-11-24). Calvin's Calvinism:  A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God.  Translated by Henry Cole. (Kindle Locations 321-335).  . Kindle Edition.

John Calvin: The Superiority of Scripture

1. Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men  have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. And, indeed, it had been so foretold by the mouth of Isaiah. For when he says, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” he does not tie down the ancient Church to external doctrine, as he were a mere teacher of elements; he rather shows that, under the reign of Christ, the true and full felicity of the new Church will consist in their being ruled not less by the Word than by the Spirit of God. Hence we infer that these miscreants are guilty of fearful sacrilege in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in indissoluble union. Add to this, that Paul, though carried up even to the third heaven, ceased not to profit by the doctrine of the law and the prophets, while, in like manner, he exhorts Timothy, a teacher of singular excellence, to give attention to reading ( [1 Tim. 4:13] ). And the eulogium which he pronounces on Scripture well deserves to be remembered—viz. that “it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect,” ( [2 Tim. 3:16] ). What an infatuation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use? Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself ( [John 16:13] ), but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

Institutes of the Christian Religion.  Book I, Chapter 9, Section 1.

Zeal Without Doctrine

John Calvin: Quote of the Day

God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the [generality] of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” ( [Isaiah 53:1] ). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.  John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.  1.7.5

Compare Matthew 19:11.

Calvin on the Necessity of Reading and Hearing of God's Word

2. Hence it is easy to understand that we must give diligent heed both to the reading and hearing of Scripture, if we would obtain any benefit from the Spirit of God (just as Peter praises those who attentively study the doctrine of the prophets (2 Pet. 1:19), though it might have been thought to be superseded after the gospel light arose), and, on the contrary, that any spirit which passes by the wisdom of God’s Word, and suggests any other doctrine, is deservedly suspected of vanity and falsehood. Since Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority can the Spirit have with us if he be not ascertained by an infallible mark? And assuredly he is pointed out to us by the Lord with sufficient clearness; but these miserable men err as if bent on their own destruction, while they seek the Spirit from themselves rather than from Him.

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Calvin on James 2:18-26: Justification by Faith Manifests Works

11. But they say that we have a still more serious business with James, who in express terms opposes us. For he asks, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works?” and adds “You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” ( [James 2:21, 24] ). What then? Will they engage Paul in a quarrel with James? If they hold James to be a servant of Christ, his sentiments must be understood as not dissenting from Christ speaking by the mouth of Paul. By the mouth of Paul the Spirit declares that Abraham obtained justification by faith, not by works; we also teach that all are justified by faith without the works of the law. By James the same Spirit declares that both Abraham’s justification and ours consists of works, and not of faith only. It is certain that the Spirit cannot be at variance with himself. Where, then, will be the agreement? It is enough for our opponents, provided they can tear up that justification by faith which we regard as fixed by the deepest roots:45  to restore peace to the conscience is to them a matter of no great concern. Hence you may see, that though they indeed carp at the doctrine of justification by faith, they meanwhile point out no goal of righteousness at which the conscience may rest. Let them triumph then as they will, so long as the only victory they can boast of is, that they have deprived righteousness of all its certainty. This miserable victory they will indeed obtain when the light of truth is extinguished, and the Lord permits them to darken it with their lies. But wherever the truth of God stands they cannot prevail. I deny, then, that the passage of James which they are constantly holding up before us as if it were the shield of Achilles, gives them the slightest countenance. To make this plain, let us first attend to the scope of the Apostle, and then show wherein their hallucination consists. As at that time (and the evil has existed in the Church ever since) there were many who, while they gave manifest proof of their infidelity, by neglecting and omitting all the works peculiar to believers, ceased not falsely to glory in the name of faith, James here dissipates their vain confidence. His intention therefore is, not to derogate in any degree from the power of true faith, but to show how absurdly these triflers laid claim only to the empty name, and resting satisfied with it, felt secure in unrestrained indulgence in vice. This state of matters being understood, it will be easy to see where the error of our opponents lies. They fall into a double paralogism, the one in the term [faith] , the other in the term [justifying] . The Apostle, in giving the name of [faith] to an empty opinion altogether differing from true faith, makes a concession which derogates in no respect from his case. This he demonstrates at the outset by the words, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works?” ( [James 2:14] ). He says not, “If a man [have] faith without works,” but “if he say that he has.” This becomes still clearer when a little after he derides this faith as worse than that of devils, and at last when he calls it “dead.” You may easily ascertain his meaning by the explanation, “Thou believest that there is one God.” Surely if all which is contained in that faith is a belief in the existence of God, there is no wonder that it does not justify. The denial of such a power to it cannot be supposed to derogate in any degree from Christian faith, which is of a very different description. For how does true faith justify unless by uniting us to Christ, so that being made one with him, we may be admitted to a participation in his righteousness? It does not justify because it forms an idea of the divine existence, but because it reclines with confidence on the divine mercy.

See also, section 12:

12. We have not made good our point until we dispose of the other paralogism: since James places a part of justification in works. If you would make James consistent with the other Scriptures and with himself, you must give the word [justify] , as used by him, a different meaning from what it has with Paul. In the sense of Paul we are said to be justified when the remembrance of our unrighteousness is obliterated and we are counted righteous. Had James had the same meaning it would have been absurd for him to quote the words of Moses, “Abraham believed God,” &c. The context runs thus: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” If it is absurd to say that the effect was prior to its cause, either Moses falsely declares in that passage that Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness or Abraham, by his obedience in offering up Isaac, did not merit righteousness. Before the existence of Ishmael, who was a grown youth at the birth of Isaac, Abraham was justified by his faith. How then can we say that he obtained justification by an obedience which followed long after? Wherefore, either James erroneously inverts the proper order (this it were impious to suppose), or he meant not to say that he was justified, as if he deserved to be deemed just. What then? It appears certain that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by true faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for their contempt of good works. Therefore, let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III: 17:11-12

[51 451 French, “Il suffit à nos adversaires s’ils peuvent deraciner la justice de foy, laquelle nous voulons estre plantee au profond du cœur.”—It is enough for our opponents if they can root up justification by faith, which we desire to be planted at the bottom of the heart.]

--


Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Calvin's Commentary on Romans 1:20

So that they are inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the consequence is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege anything before God’s tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is. Hence the Apostle in Hebrews 11:3, ascribes to faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the work of creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness, so that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in Acts 14:16-17, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in their ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon,) since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation, which Christ mentions in John 17:3, and in which we are to glory, as Jeremiah teaches us, Jeremiah 9:24

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.v.vi.html

As you can see, Calvin would not have seen Matthew 5:43-48 as "common grace" to any degree whatsoever. Instead, Calvin does not see this goodness of God toward the reprobate as an act of love, because it brings even greater condemnation and leaves them without excuse. The blessings of God demonstrate to the wicked that He is good, while they are wicked and unthankful. It has absolutely nothing to do with "common grace."