John Calvin’s theology introduced a highly debatable distinction that has had long-lasting consequences for the Christian faith. By emphasizing that obedience to Christ must come from the right internal motivation—specifically, from love rather than any attempt to earn salvation—Calvin created a theological framework that was inherently divisive. This emphasis was not merely a doctrinal refinement but became a means of distinguishing the Reformed movement from the existing Church. The result was not greater clarity, but a theological burden that has caused many sincere believers to doubt their faith, question their obedience, and even stumble in their walk with Christ.
The fundamental problem with this distinction is that it is impossible to resolve. No one can fully understand their own heart, let alone the hearts of others. Unlike clear, objective commands of Christ—such as loving one’s neighbor, refraining from sin, and caring for the needy—Calvin’s introspective standard required believers to evaluate their own motives in ways that Scripture never commands. This created an impossible dilemma: how can anyone be certain that their obedience is purely from love and not tainted by some hidden desire for reward or self-righteousness? Instead of encouraging Christians to confidently follow Christ’s commands, this doctrine introduced endless self-doubt. The very act of trying to obey Jesus became a source of anxiety rather than joy.
This problem is not merely theoretical but deeply practical. If salvation is tied to the purity of one’s motivations in obedience, then believers can never have full assurance. They are left questioning whether their faith is truly sincere, whether their actions count as genuine service to Christ, or whether they are unknowingly engaging in “works” that supposedly undermine grace. This directly contradicts Jesus’ own teaching, which never required believers to psychoanalyze their obedience. Jesus simply said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). He did not demand that they first verify the purity of their intentions before obeying. Paul, likewise, praised those who served Christ, even when their motivations were mixed. In Philippians 1:15-18, he acknowledged that some preached Christ with impure motives, yet he still rejoiced that Christ was preached. This demonstrates that, according to the apostles, obedience and service to Christ were to be encouraged—not endlessly scrutinized for hidden defects of the heart.
Beyond the personal struggles it creates, this theological emphasis has also been damaging to the Church as a whole. Instead of unifying believers around the simple call to follow Christ, it introduced a divisive standard that no one could agree on. Since motivation is invisible, it became a point of endless debate, suspicion, and division. Some believers began doubting the sincerity of others’ faith, accusing them of practicing “works-based salvation” simply because they took obedience seriously. This turned faith into a kind of internal self-examination rather than an active life of discipleship. The inevitable result was that some Christians became passive, fearing that too much effort in following Christ might indicate a reliance on works rather than grace. Others, in contrast, became hyper-vigilant in questioning whether others’ faith was truly “grace-driven.” Instead of building up the Church, this doctrine undermined its unity and effectiveness.
The root of this error lies in the historical context in which it was formulated. Paul’s teachings on faith and works were originally addressing a very specific issue: whether Jewish Christians were required to keep the Mosaic Law to be justified. Paul never applied these arguments to obedience to Christ itself. Calvin, however, reinterpreted Paul’s writings to argue against the Roman Catholic Church’s sacramental system, using Paul’s rejection of Jewish Law as a model for rejecting Catholic traditions. This was a misapplication, as it took an argument about Jewish legalism and redirected it toward the broader issue of Christian obedience. The result was that Calvin’s theology did not merely challenge certain Church practices—it reshaped the very way Christians understood faith and works, creating a lasting confusion that has persisted for centuries.
Perhaps most dangerously, this teaching risks turning good into evil. Jesus gave a stern warning against causing His followers to stumble (Matthew 18:6), yet Calvin’s framework does exactly that. Many sincere Christians, who are genuinely striving to obey Christ, are made to doubt their own faith because they fear their obedience might be the wrong kind—rooted in effort rather than love. But how can one love without effort? How can one truly follow Christ without striving to do what He commanded? By framing the issue in this way, Calvin’s theology has led to an unnecessary stumbling block that discourages believers from actively living out their faith.
At its core, this doctrine is not just a theological error but a harmful and divisive teaching. It meets the biblical definition of heresy, not merely because it misinterprets Paul’s teachings, but because it created a factional Christianity that has led to centuries of division and spiritual harm. Instead of uniting believers in the common pursuit of following Christ, it has fostered endless disputes over invisible motives, undermining the simplicity of Jesus’ call to obedience. Any doctrine that introduces unnecessary doubt, weakens faith, and divides the Church cannot be from God. Instead of burdening Christians with an impossible standard of inner purity, the Church must return to the biblical emphasis: obedience to Christ is an expression of love, and that love is demonstrated in action, not in endless self-examination.
Stephen D Green with ChatGPT, April 2025
