unreasonable?
humanity's own disobedience. Augustine explained it well: humans, as God made them, were good; as sinners, they are corrupted. In this way, we honor God as the creator of good while acknowledging humanity's responsibility for sin.
7. Does this teaching make God's commands unreasonable? Finally, Pighius claims that if we are unable to fulfill God's commands, then requiring obedience is unjust. But we are responsible for our inability to follow God's law, as sin has weakened us. The law's role is not to grant righteousness but to show us our sin, revealing our need for God's grace. When we recognize our shortcomings, we are emptied of pride and ready to receive God's help, knowing that He provides the strength we lack.
Calvin's Response to Pighius's Comparison of Reformers to Heretics
Pighius tries to discredit Luther and us by associating our teachings with ancient heretics like Priscillian, Mani, Marcion, Cerdo, and even Simon Magus, claiming Luther is worse than all of them. This tactic might sound clever, but it's actually baseless. Pighius's audience likely consists of those who have no interest in examining our teachings honestly—they support anything that criticizes us without caring about its truth.
He's not the first to make such accusations. The Pelagians once accused Augustine of similar heretical beliefs, connecting him unfairly to the Manichees. Yet, the truth always stands up against empty accusations.
As for Simon Magus, it's absurd for Pighius to compare us to him. Ancient writers like Irenaeus and Augustine documented Simon's bizarre teachings, which include denying God as creator, claiming to be divine, rejecting the resurrection, and promoting pagan myths. There is nothing in Simon's teachings on free will, predestination, or the providence of God that resembles our doctrine.
Pighius bases his claims on a fictitious work, the Recognitions of Clement, an unreliable book falsely attributed to Clement of Rome. Even early church authorities recognized it as the invention of a monk. This forgery is filled with absurdities and lacks any apostolic spirit. Writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian, who debated heretics like Valentinus and Marcion, never relied on such a text to defend apostolic teaching. If they had access to an authentic record from Peter's disciple, they would have used it. The fact that they didn't suggests they knew this text was not genuine.
In short, Pighius's attempt to link us to Simon Magus is unfounded. He resorts to invented sources and distorted history, hoping to stir up prejudice rather than engage in honest debate.
Pighius accuses us of sharing beliefs with various ancient heretics like Mani, Marcion, and even Simon Magus, intending to stir up fear and hatred against our teaching. Yet, this tactic is groundless. Pighius's claims rely on false and absurd sources, such as the Recognitions of Clement, a work widely dismissed by early church authorities as a forgery. Even Eusebius, an early historian, doubted its authenticity, stating that the teaching in it did not reflect pure apostolic faith. If it had been genuine, respected figures like Irenaeus or Tertullian would have relied on it in their disputes with heretics, but they never did.
Moving to the heresies themselves, let's examine them briefly. The teachings of these ancient heretics are vastly different from ours. For example:
Valentinus believed that the devil was born from one of thirty spiritual beings and that the world was made by evil beings. He attributed evil to the nature of the world itself, not to human choice. Marcion and Mani created dualistic systems, proposing two gods: one good, one evil. They believed evil came from a separate, evil god, not from human sin. The Priscillianists argued that human souls were made from divine substance and became polluted by a malevolent creator, attributing human corruption to creation rather than the fall.
In contrast, our teaching, even as Pighius begrudgingly admits, holds that God created Adam in His image, endowed with wisdom, righteousness, and free will. Adam's fall was due to his own disobedience, not an inherent flaw in creation. We believe that human corruption came through Adam's sin, which affected all his descendants. Human nature was created good and was only corrupted due to Adam's misuse of his freedom.
Pighius's own summary of our beliefs concedes that we attribute human fallenness to sin, not to God's design or an evil origin. Therefore, our doctrine is entirely different from these ancient heresies, which attribute human corruption to creation itself rather than to human rebellion.
Pighius continues to compare our teachings to those of ancient heretics like Cerdo, Valentinus, and the Manichees, claiming we view humanity as inherently evil by creation. But our teaching is clear: humanity was created good and upright by God. Corruption entered
only through humanity's own rebellion. There is a vast difference between saying that corruption is a defect in human nature and saying it is part of our created substance. Augustine, when addressing similar false accusations, defended this view, teaching that sin is not part of our nature's essence but a result of human choice.
Pighius goes further, claiming our doctrines are even more blasphemous than those of the Manichees. The Manichees invented two opposing divine forces to explain good and evil, but Pighius asserts that Luther and I attribute evil directly to God by describing the wicked as instruments in His hand. Yet, this idea of God's sovereignty over even the wicked is not Luther's invention but is rooted in Scripture. Isaiah, for example, compares the wicked to a saw moved by God to accomplish His purpose, as in God's use of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib (Isaiah 10). Luther always explained that while God uses the actions of the wicked, the sin itself originates from their own hearts and is rightly attributed to them.
Pighius also finds it offensive that we describe human nature, even after redemption, as corrupted and inclined against God. Yet this is no radical claim—it is simply what Scripture teaches. God Himself says, "Every imagination of the heart of man is only evil from childhood" and "The heart is deceitful above all things" (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9). Even Paul admitted that in his own flesh, there was nothing good and that his sinful nature constantly opposed God's law. He speaks not only from humility but from real struggle, acknowledging that part of himself resists God's Spirit.
Pighius is shocked by Luther's description of human nature as a "wild beast" opposing the Spirit. But Augustine himself expressed similar views, saying that, apart from God's righteousness, we are
like Satan himself. Augustine warned that, left to ourselves, all we have is sin, and we are utterly dependent on God for any goodness.
Scripture or Tradition?
Pighius claims that he wouldn't believe Scripture if it contradicted what he already believes about free will—even saying that if a passage supported Luther's view, he'd consider it the work of the devil. Such arrogance blinds him to any truth beyond his own opinions, making meaningful dialogue impossible. Yet, I respond to him not for his sake, but for others who are genuinely seeking understanding.
Pighius argues that Scripture must support his view because the early church Fathers didn't teach that human actions occur by "inevitable necessity." He asserts that the Fathers believed in human freedom and did not blame God for evil. In response, I first note that we, like the Fathers, affirm divine providence over all things. They, too, taught that God is the sovereign guide who orders all events according to His will, without being subject to randomness or chance.
As for the law, Pighius claims we undermine it by saying that humans cannot fulfill it perfectly. But Scripture teaches that the law's perfection is beyond our natural ability. No one has ever fully kept it, nor can they, because it demands absolute righteousness. God has chosen not to grant any human the perfection needed to meet the law's standards fully. Paul himself argues that all who fail to keep the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10). If it were possible for someone to fully keep it, this curse would not apply universally. Paul's reasoning, which Pighius overlooks, is that everyone falls short of the law, making them all subject to its judgment.
In conclusion, Scripture clearly shows both God's sovereign ordering of events and humanity's inability to achieve righteousness on their own. To deny this is to ignore the very Word of God.
Pighius insists that the early church Fathers believed humans could keep God's law, implying they thought this achievable through free will. However, even the Fathers, like Jerome and Augustine, attributed this ability to the power of God's grace, not human strength. Augustine clearly taught that, while God commands obedience, human nature—corrupted by sin—cannot fulfill this command perfectly without divine aid.
The crux of our debate, however, lies in whether we find the foundation of faith in God's Word or in church tradition. Pighius argues that we should rely on tradition to guide our faith, claiming that Scripture alone is not sufficient. But if faith is built upon human decrees rather than the eternal Word of God, it would rest on an unstable foundation, open to human error. True faith must stand on the unchanging truth of Scripture.
Pighius warns that heretics twist Scripture, just as Satan twisted God's Word to tempt Christ. Therefore, he claims, we should avoid relying on Scripture alone and instead seek safety in church tradition. Yet, if Christ Himself repelled Satan by quoting Scripture, shouldn't we follow His example? Jesus relied solely on God's Word to confront deception, setting a pattern for us to do the same.
Pighius insists that Scripture is unreliable without the church's interpretation, arguing that it can be twisted "like a waxen nose" to suit anyone's whims. This view reduces God's Word to mere clay in human hands. But if even the sayings of philosophers like Pythagoras and Epicurus are clearly understood by their followers, how can we believe that God's extensive, clear, and holy Scriptures are so
ambiguous? If God truly speaks to us through His Word, then it must provide certain, reliable truth to guide His people.
In summary, while tradition has value, only Scripture provides the sure and unchanging foundation for our faith.
God Himself speaks clearly through His Word, affirming that we don't need to search for divine truth in obscure or distant places. In Deuteronomy, He says, "The word is near, in your mouth," urging us to embrace His Word with confidence. This was true even under the Old Testament law, which provided a "dawn" of revelation before the fullness of light in Christ. If God's Word was reliable then, how much more so now with Christ revealed!
Isaiah echoes this by declaring, "I did not speak in secret," meaning God's words are not hidden or obscure. He assures us that those who seek Him will find Him, underscoring that His Word offers guidance we can trust. Pighius's view, which casts doubt on Scripture's clarity, flies in the face of these testimonies from God. Rather than a source of confusion, Scripture is a "safe harbor" that promises life to those who listen and trust it.
Pighius argues that Scripture alone is not sufficient; he claims we also need church tradition to fully understand God's will. But God, through His prophets, consistently directed His people back to His law and testimony, not to human traditions. Isaiah instructs us, "To the law and the testimony!" and Malachi likewise points people back to the law to guide them until Christ comes. Peter, too, insists that we have a "more secure prophetic message," which is like a lamp in a dark place, reliable until the "morning star" rises in our hearts. He warns that Scripture should not be twisted by private interpretation, emphasizing instead that the Holy Spirit, who inspired it, is its true interpreter.
David, in the Psalms, speaks from his own experience of faith when he says, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." He assures us that God's Word provides guidance, understanding, and security for those who seek Him sincerely.
Pighius's claim that Scripture is a "waxen nose," easily shaped to mean anything, reveals his lack of true understanding and appreciation of God's Word. By urging us to rely on church authority instead, he diverts us from the secure foundation God has provided in Scripture. True faith finds stability and guidance in God's Word, which is always reliable and trustworthy.
To settle this matter, Pighius argues that Scripture is too easily twisted by heretics and is, therefore, uncertain and unclear. He insists we should rely instead on the church's authority as a sure and trustworthy rule of faith.
But let him answer: what has changed since Paul said that "faith comes by hearing" the Word of God? Paul called Scripture the "spiritual sword" that overthrows Satan; surely it's also effective against all heretics. If Scripture has the power to penetrate deeply, revealing even the thoughts of the heart, how can it be weak or unclear? Paul also declared, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correction, and training in righteousness," so that believers may be complete. Are we now to believe the Holy Spirit overlooked the subtlety of heretics in misinterpreting Scripture? Should we doubt that God anticipated and prepared Scripture to withstand false interpretations?
If Pighius still insists Scripture is inadequate to counter heretics, he stands opposed to the truth. Paul, when debating with the Jews, relied only on Scripture (as recorded in Acts 17). And when there is much controversy, Scripture serves as the ultimate standard, a
"touchstone" by which all doctrines are tested. The Holy Spirit praised the Bereans for checking Paul's teaching against the Scriptures, confirming that God intended His Word to serve as a reliable standard for testing all doctrines.
Augustine puts it well: when faced with a complex issue without clear scriptural proof, human opinion must restrain itself, since it achieves nothing by speculating. Augustine himself said that everything necessary for salvation has clear support in Scripture. By this point in his life, after years of struggling against heresies, Augustine knew how powerful Scripture is both for teaching and for defending truth.
the church's authority as the foundation of our faith. Ironically, he uses Scripture itself to argue this point, taking verses out of context to fit his argument. He quotes, "False prophets shall arise and shall lead many astray in my name," and insists that this refers to misleading interpretations of Scripture. But even if we allow his interpretation, there are other ways people could deceive in Christ's name, so his conclusion is flawed.
Pighius also tries to assign an allegorical meaning to terms like "wilderness" and "inner rooms," as if they mean new ideas foreign to the church. Yet in Luke's gospel, Christ himself interprets this differently, explaining that God's kingdom is a spiritual one, present within believers and not to be confined to earthly signs. When Christ speaks of his sudden return, "like lightning from the east to the west," he emphasizes its unpredictability and majesty, not something hidden in "inner chambers."
Pighius further claims that the phrase "where the body is, there the eagles will gather" refers to the unity of the church and its members. However, the Greek word here means "corpse." Christ likely meant that just as eagles gather around a single corpse, so the elect will
gather to him alone, not to a human institution. Christ himself, not human unity, is the true bond.
In the end, Pighius's manipulation of Scripture to support his arguments serves only to weaken his own cause. Just as clouds may obscure the sun for a time, yet cannot extinguish its light, so too, the truth of God's Word endures steadfastly, shining forth clearly enough to be faithfully understood without the strained and forced interpretations of men.
Pighius attempts to elevate the authority of church tradition by citing Paul's strong warning in Galatians that anyone, even an angel, who teaches a different gospel should be accursed. Pighius argues that because Paul's message was originally delivered orally, it supports the authority of tradition.
But consider how God has established his will through the ages. First, he gave his law to Israel, then expanded on it through the prophets. The prophets' teachings weren't new or different but clarified and deepened the law. Before Christ came, the Scriptures consisted of the law and the prophets, which the people of God held as authoritative. Jesus and the apostles continually referenced these writings as a reliable witness to God's truth.
The apostles initially preached by word of mouth as Jesus instructed, but God eventually ensured that the essential teachings were written down to preserve them accurately for all generations. This written record protects against the human tendencies toward inconsistency, innovation, and drifting from God's truth. God declares, "I am always the same, and I do not change." This consistency is now captured in Scripture, providing a firm anchor to keep us close to God's unchanging will.
The same process that occurred with the prophets also occurred with the apostles. While not all their sermons were written down word for word, their gospel was summarized in the Scriptures, giving us everything we need for faith and life. Hebrews tells us that God has spoken definitively in these "last days" through his Son. This final message through Jesus is recorded by the apostles, as John assures us that his writings grant eternal life to those who read and believe.
Paul commends his own teaching to distinguish it from false teachers who misused Christ's name to distort the gospel. By referring to his message, Paul isn't promoting a personal gospel but safeguarding the pure gospel that belongs to the whole church. This is the "catholic" (universal) gospel, set down in Scripture, preserved by God, and authoritative for all believers.
Pighius claims that early church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen based their defense of doctrine on church tradition, not Scripture. However, a closer look reveals a different story.
Irenaeus, for instance, dealt with heretics who outright rejected both Scripture and the church's consensus. These heretics claimed to possess a "higher wisdom" than the apostles and argued that even the church's teachings were tainted. In response, Irenaeus emphasized that the teachings we need for salvation come only through the apostles, who first spoke the truth and later wrote it down to be the foundation of faith. He repeatedly affirmed that Scripture is where believers learn complete wisdom.
Tertullian similarly argued from tradition, but not because he distrusted Scripture. Instead, he saw that heretics twisted Scripture endlessly, so he pointed to the faith handed down from the apostles to help safeguard new believers from confusion. Though he advised not to engage in endless debates with heretics, fearing they only grew
bolder and more obstinate, he frequently relied on Scripture to argue against their errors.
In sum, the early fathers did reference tradition to combat specific challenges, but they always affirmed that true doctrine was rooted in Scripture.
When the early church fathers defended the faith against heretics, they often relied on Scripture as their primary authority. For example, when Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, he instructed the bishops to seek answers from Scripture. The church fathers did not object; they were ready to use the Bible to guide their discussion. Likewise, Augustine resisted settling disputes solely on the writings of past church leaders, instead calling people back to the Scriptures, saying, "The books of God are open; let us listen to them."
This reliance on Scripture does not mean that the unity of the church in understanding faith isn't valuable. Church consensus can confirm our beliefs, but it must not replace Scripture. The foundation of our faith rests on God's Word alone, and any consensus must align with Scripture. The faith we share with past saints is precious not because of human agreement alone, but because it is rooted in God's unchanging truth, which has been tested and proven by Scripture.
Pighius argues that tradition should come first, with Scripture secondary. But this approach risks making Scripture bend to human opinions. By placing church tradition above Scripture, he would have us first consult human interpretations, then fit Scripture to match. If there's a conflict between human tradition and God's Word, Pighius would resolve it by forcing Scripture into a subordinate position, effectively silencing it. True theology, however, should place
Scripture as the highest authority, with all other teachings and traditions judged by its truth.
To avoid needless debate, I would like readers to know that it wouldn't be hard for Pighius and me to find common ground on church tradition if he would use it in the right way. Let him base his arguments on the clear, lasting agreement of the saints and faithful teachers, and not on selective quotes pulled from here and there. He should use the Fathers' writings honestly, aiming to prove the genuine teaching of the church rather than twisting their words to support today's false ideas. Paul calls the church "the pillar and support of the truth" because God entrusted it with His Word. The true church upholds, preserves, and faithfully passes down this Word, untainted by error.
If Pighius tries to present scattered writings from Origen, Tertullian, or others as "church tradition," claiming they represent apostolic teachings, I will not accept that without question. Even great thinkers can be mistaken in important matters of faith. So, individual statements must be measured by God's Word to see if they truly align with apostolic truth. Without that standard, we would have to accept every idea they taught, including their known errors.
Pighius's approach is even more problematic when he takes statements from the Fathers, which originally held good and clear meanings, and reinterprets them to defend views that the Fathers themselves would have rejected. In the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian, many still remembered the teachings of the apostles firsthand; it was natural for them to pass on what was clearly known and consistent with the gospel they had received directly. But even Origen, close to their time, included views in his essential teachings that would be condemned by Pighius's own side.
Now, centuries later, after the church has faced so many trials and changes, it is unwise to try to label as "church tradition" every belief that has found its way in, often with no clear origin or author. Pighius may claim to quote only from early church leaders who defended true faith, but his purpose is to use their authority to make false doctrines seem valid—doctrines the Fathers would never have supported. I urge readers to look honestly at how our own time compares to those ancient days; then they will see how far from genuine tradition Pighius's approach really is.
Pighius argues that all the church Fathers unanimously supported the idea of free choice, implying that we are heretics for dissenting from this tradition. He also accuses me of lying for claiming that, except for Augustine, early church writers were unclear or inconsistent on this issue.
To clarify, I have no problem with calling the will "free" if "free" means that our choices are made without external force or coercion. In that sense, I agree that we act according to our own inclination. But my concern is that people commonly assume that "free will" means humans have the inherent power to choose between good and evil entirely by themselves. This misunderstanding leads many to believe that they can choose good by their own strength—a dangerous error.
Moreover, Scripture itself doesn't use the term "free will" in this way. Freedom and bondage are opposites; if the will is in bondage, it cannot also be truly free. Paul describes believers, even after receiving God's Spirit, as still struggling with the "chains of sin" where sin is always at work in the flesh. He says that before regeneration, people are "sold under sin"—entirely captive to it. If