Why does Limited Atonement Matter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgely's Commentary on the Larger Catechism, volume 1 is perhaps helpful here as pertains to WLC 32.

Beginning on page 454..

It is farther said, in this Answer, that the grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in his ' requiring faith as the condition to interest' believers in Christ. This expression may be allowed, or excepted against, according to the method taken to explain it. We shall endeavour to show what it means ; and shall point out in what sense we deny the covenant of grace to be conditional. We shall next inquire, whether there be not another sense, agreeable to the divine perfections, in which these words may be understood as well as other expressions of a similar nature, in which faith is styled a condition, and which are frequently used by divines.

Now a person's having an interest in Christ, implies his having a right to claim him, as his Mediator, Surety, Advocate, and Saviour, and with him all those spiritual blessings which are purchased and applied by him to those whom he has redeemed ; so that such an one may say, on good grounds,' Christ is mine, together with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in him.'

Here let it be considered, that it is one thing to say, that Christ is the Redeemer and Saviour of man, or, in particular, of his elect, who are given to him that he may save them ; and another thing for a person to say. He is my Redeemer or Saviour. The former is a truth founded in scripture-revelation. Accordingly every one may say, as Moses expresses it, ' Yea, he loved the people,' or his peculiar chosen people ; or, as the apostle says, 'Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it'. But he who has an interest in Christ, has a right to claim him as his Saviour, and therefore may say, with the apostle, ' He loved me, and gave himself for me.' This I rather choose to express, by a believer's having a right to claim him as his Saviour, than by his being actually enabled so to do; inasmuch as many have an interest in Christ, who are destitute of that assurance which would give them a comfortable sense of it in their own souls.

We are now to consider how faith is said to be required, as the condition to interest us in Christ ; or how far this expression may be qualified and explained, without asserting any thing derogatory to the glory of God or the grace of the covenant. The word 'condition,' though often used when we speak of contracts between man and man, as an essential ingredient in them, is not so plainly contained in those explanations of the covenant of grace which we have in scripture; and, whenever we use it with a particular application to this, we must understand it in such a sense as is agreeable to the divine perfections.

Now, that we may compare these two senses of the word 'condition,' in order to our determining how far, in explaining this doctrine, it may be used or laid aside, let us consider that in human covenants, in which things are promised on certain conditions, these conditions are supposed to be possible to be performed; otherwise the promise depending on the performance of them is rendered void, and contains no other than a virtual denial to make it good. Thus the king of Israel did not at first, understand the message sent him by the king of Syria requiring of him to heal Naaman o f his leprosy, as a condition of peace and friendship between them and the inference he makes from it was, that he had a design to seek a quarrel against him. And his reasoning would have been just, had it been intended in this sense ; since the condition was not in his own power. Moreover, if a master should tell his servant, that he would give him a reward, in case he would perform the work of ten days in one, the servant would conclude nothing else from it but that he was resolved not to give him any thing.

Now, to apply this to our present purpose, we must consider whether faith, when it is a condition of the covenant of grace, be in our own power or not. There are some external acts of it, indeed which are so ; but these are too low to be deemed conditions of salvation, or of the blessings of the covenant of grace. As for those acts which are supernatural or the effects of the exceeding greatness of the power of God, though they are inseparably connected with salvation, yet they are not in such a manner in our power that we may conclude them to be proposed as conditions, in the same sense as those things are said to be, which are properly conditions. In this respect, the covenant of grace, as to the conditionality of it, differs from the covenant of innocency. In the latter covenant, perfect obedience, which was the condition of it, was so far in man's power, that he could have performed it without the superadded assistance of divine grace. But when, on the other hand, perfect obedience is considered as a condition of fallen man's 'entering into life,' in which sense our Saviour's reply to the young man's question is understood by many, a plain intimation is made that eternal life is not to be obtained in this way, inasmuch as the condition is impossible.

Again, when conditions are insisted on in human covenants, it is generally supposed that, though it be possible for the person who enjoins them to assist and enable him who is under this obligation to perform them, yet he will not give him that assistance; for, if he does, the contract can hardly be reckoned conditional but absolute. Thus, if a creditor should tell an insolvent debtor, that he will discharge him, provided he pay the debt, and, at the same time, gives him to understand that he will supply him with a sum of money which shall enable him to pay it , the transaction is altogether the same as if he had discharged him without anv conditional demand of payment. This I cannot but mention, because there are some persons, who speak of faith as a condition of the covenant of grace and at the same time, take it for granted, that it is not in our own power to perform it and who, because God has promised that he will work it in us, conclude it to be conditional,—though such a promise renders the covenant absolute, or, at least, not conditional in the same sense in which human covenants are ; and they infer only, what we do not deny, that there is a necessary connection between that grace which God will enable us to perform, and salvation which he has promised in the covenant.

Further , when any thing is promised to another on condition that he do what is enjoined on him, it is generally supposed to be a dubious and uncertain matter whether this condition shall be fulfilled, and the premise take place; or, as I may express it, every condition contains, not a necessary, but an uncertain connection between the promised advantage and the duty enjoined. Th e reason of this is, that all human covenants depend on the power and will of men, who are under conditional engagements to perform what is demanded in them; that, as these are supposed to be mutable and defective, as far as they are so, the performance of the condition may be reckoned dubious; and that he who made the promise is liable to the same uncertainty, whether he shall make it good or not. This view of the matter will hardly be denied by those who defend the other side of the question ; who, in explaining tlie nature of human liberty, generally suppose that «very one who acts freely, might do the contrary. They must hence conclude that, if the performing of the conditions of a covenant be the result of man's freewill, it is possible for him not to perform them; and that, therefore, it must be a matter of uncertainty, whether a person who promises a reward on the performance of these conditions will confer it or not. But, however this may be applied to human covenants, we are not to suppose that faith or any other grace, is in this respect, a condition of the covenant of grace ; as though God's conferring the blessings promised in it were dependent on the will of man, as determining itself to the exercise of these grapes. In this respect, we cannot but deny that the covenant of grace is conditional.​


He concludes the discussion on page 458, but the above should give a sense of the distinctions made.
 
Last edited:
Thank you AMR!

So can we conclude that:

1. Election unto salvation is unconditional, and in this sense the certain salvation is not conditional.

2. The purchased redemption of the elect is appropriated by faith, a condition that God certainly meets when He regenerates a person and gives them faith.

3: Since faith is a condition of salvation in this sense, it can be offered to all upon this condition and truly rejected because the reprobate refuse to accept Christ by faith to meet this requirement (they are not able). Therefore they truly reject salvation.

Are we agreed on these things?
 
Thank you AMR!


So can we conclude that:


1. Election unto salvation is unconditional, and in this sense the certain salvation is not conditional.


2. The purchased redemption of the elect is appropriated by faith, a condition that God certainly meets when He regenerates a person and gives them faith.


3: Since faith is a condition of salvation in this sense, it can be offered to all upon this condition and truly rejected because the reprobate refuse to accept Christ by faith to meet this requirement (they are not able). Therefore they truly reject salvation.


Are we agreed on these things?
Perhaps I should have posted more of Ridgeley, wherein he concludes his treatment of WLC #32 with (emphasis mine):


Further, if we assert more than this, namely, that faith is a condition of the covenant of grace, or, as it is expressed in this Answer, a condition to interest believers in Christ, we must distinguish between God's bestowing the blessings of the covenant of grace, pursuant to his secret will or his eternal purpose, and our having a visible ground or reason to claim an interest in them. The former of these cannot be supposed to be conditional, without making God dependent on our act; the latter may, and, I think, ought, to be deemed so. Thus faith is a condition, or an internal qualification, without which no one has a warrant to conclude his interest in, or lay claim to, the saving blessings of the covenant of grace.


Hence, when it is said to be a condition to interest believers in Christ, we are to understand it as that which evinces our claim to him, or which gives us ground to conclude that we are redeemed by him, and to expect that he will bestow upon us complete salvation. To deny this, would be to suppose that an unbeliever has a warrant to conclude that Christ loved him and gave himself for him, or that he shall be saved by him. But that is a doctrine which I cannot but oppose with the greatest detestation, as what contains an unwarrantable presumption, and leads to licentiousness; which, I hope, nothing that has been said on this subject has the least tendency to do. We have thus considered how faith may be said to be a condition of our laying claim to an interest in Christ.


Your #1 brings the decree into the discussion and we should avoid this for the discussion at hand.


In your #2, I am wondering why you lay "a condition" upon God.


Taking your #2 and #3 and attempting to substitute your terms for clarity:


"The purchased redemption of the elect is appropriated by faith, a condition that God certainly meets when He regenerates a person and gives them faith, hence it can be offered to all upon appropriation by faith and truly rejected because the reprobate refuse to accept Christ by faith to meet this requirement (they are not able). Therefore they truly reject salvation."


What is "it"?
What is "this requirement"?
 
Thank you AMR!

So can we conclude that:

1. Election unto salvation is unconditional, and in this sense the certain salvation is not conditional.

2. The purchased redemption of the elect is appropriated by faith, a condition that God certainly meets when He regenerates a person and gives them faith.

3: Since faith is a condition of salvation in this sense, it can be offered to all upon this condition and truly rejected because the reprobate refuse to accept Christ by faith to meet this requirement (they are not able). Therefore they truly reject salvation.

Are we agreed on these things?

Tim,

It seems like you're mixing the CoW and the CoG in this formulation. Faith is a condition to interest in the CoG. It is something that the Holy Spirit works in the believer. The unbeliever is not being offered salvation by faith as a condition to interest in the CoG. The unbeliever is required to believe and trust Christ because he is required to believe and trust everything God says.

We cannot say that, because faith is a condition to interest for the elect, that the Gospel is to be offered to all. It's mixing apples and oranges. It's the equivalent of saying this: "On the basis that faith is given as a gift to the elect as the condition to interest in the Covenant of Grace, unbelievers are bound to believe the Gospel and are under duty to believe it."

It is both true that unbelievers are duty bound to believe the Gospel and that believers are united to Christ on the condition of faith but the two are operating under different spheres.
 
Dear AMR and Rich,

I don't believe I put a condition on God at all. I believe God obligated Himself to the conditions laid out in the CoG. Hodge:

First, salvation is offered to all men on the condition of faith in Christ. Our Lord commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. The gospel, however, is the offer of salvation upon the conditions of the covenant of grace. In this sense, the covenant of grace is formed with all mankind.

But in saying this, Hodge does not deny the certainty of Christ's substitutionary work and the certainty of the conditions being met.

For it is undoubtedly true that God offers to all and every man eternal life on condition of faith in Jesus Christ. But as it is no less true that the whole scheme of redemption has special reference to those given by the Father to the Son, and of whom our Lord says, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (John vi. 37), it follows, secondly, from the nature of the covenant between the Father and the Son, that the covenant of grace has also special reference to the elect. To them God has promised to give his Spirit in order that they may believe; and to them alone all the promises made to believers belong.

Hodge is able to do this because He distinguishes between the CoG and covenant of redemption (CoR). The WLC synthesizes the covenants and calls Christ both the Mediator and a party in the CoG (31-32). By distinguishing, Hodge is able to speak about conditions on all of mankind under the CoG, but not in the CoR. Therefore Christ is a party in the CoR and not a Mediator, and a Mediator in the CoG, not a party. I think this distinction is helpful and makes for a more organic reading of scripture.

Certainly we don't want to miss the connection between both covenants, but it does help to explain the conditions of salvation that seem clear in scripture (e.g. John 3:18. 2 Thes. 2:10) without denying the particular work of Christ.
 
Tim,

Let me quote Hodge a little more:
If this, therefore, were all that is meant by those who make the parties to the covenant of grace, God and mankind in general and all mankind equally, there would be no objection to the doctrine. For it is undoubtedly true that God offers to all and every man eternal life on condition of faith in Jesus Christ. But as it is no less true that the whole scheme of redemption has special reference to those given by the Father to the Son, and of whom our Lord says, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37), it follows, secondly, from the nature of the covenant between the Father and the Son, that the covenant of grace has also special reference to the elect. To them God has promised to give his Spirit in order that they may believe; and to them alone all the promises made to believers belong. Those who ignore the distinction between the covenants of redemption and of grace, merging the latter in the former, of course represent the parties to the covenant to be God and Christ as the head and representative of his own people. And therefore mankind, as such, are in no sense parties. All that is important is, that we should adopt such a mode of representation as will comprehend the various facts recognized in the Scriptures. It is one of those facts that salvation is offered to all men on the condition of faith in Christ. And therefore to that extent, or, in a sense which accounts for that fact, the covenant of grace is made with all men. The great sin of those who hear the gospel is that they refuse to accept of that covenant, and therefore place themselves without its pale.

Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic theology (Vol. 2, pp. 363–364). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

I actually wonder if Hodge is taking an exception to the Westminster Standards on this point because they state:
Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery,111 into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works;112 but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.113
Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.114

Now if Hodge wants to include his own Confesison in this charge I suppose his Systematic theology is seen as a corrector to the Standards on this point. I don't know why he wouldn't make that plain.

Assuming, however, that he agrees with the above, I think all that Hodge is saying is that, in some sense, the CoG is made with all men. Namely, that it is the CoG that offers salvation to sinners and there is a historical sense in which the offer is made. Someone may be a party to the external call and administration of the New Covenant, for example, but is not in Christ and, as such, the CoG was not made with all.

With respect to conditions, I find Hodge's reasoning to be odd. Quoting him:
A blessing may be promised on condition that it is asked for; or that there is a willingness to receive it. There is no merit in the asking or in the willingness, which is the ground of the gift. It remains a gratuitous favour; but it is, nevertheless, suspended upon the act of asking. It is in this last sense only that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace. There is no merit in believing. It is only the act of receiving a proffered favour. In either case the necessity is equally absolute. Without the work of Christ there would be no salvation; and without faith there is no salvation. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. He that believeth not, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic theology (Vol. 2, p. 365). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

If we again assume Hodge is not departing from the Westminster standards does he mean "condition to interest"? He makes the same kind of distinction as earlier quoted about the fulfillment of a debt as one way of thinking of condition (thereby rejecting that faith is a condition of salvation in that respect) while noting that the type of condition he is referring to here is an empty hand that reaches out by the Spirit's power (which he puts forth elsewhere in his discussion on the nature of saving faith).

While it is true that the reprobate don't fulfill this condition (and the wrath of God abideth on him), it doesn't follow that the person is in the CoG in the fuller sense and that wrath is being meted out in the CoG. I think it's important to note that Hodge doesn't say the person is outside the CoW (wrath abideth). One can still note that a person is externally amongst the administration of the CoG and does not fulfill the conditions of the CoG without saying that he is therefore "outside the CoW" and "in the CoG" when wrath abides for the failure to meet the condition of the CoG.
 
Tim, I am a novice in theology, and I wonder how your exposition fits in with 'TULIP' ? If we are totally depraved before regeneration how to accept the gift of faith unless through God's election/regeneration ? Since election is unconditional, if all men were 'elect' they would receive the regeneration and faith.

As I understand it limited atonement declares that all are not elect, and irresistible grace, as I understand it, says that whoever God sees fit to elect will receive the gift of faith and believe. Is my explanation correct, and am I understanding it rightly ?
 
Tim, I am a novice in theology, and I wonder how your exposition fits in with 'TULIP' ? If we are totally depraved before regeneration how to accept the gift of faith unless through God's election/regeneration ? Since election is unconditional, if all men were 'elect' they would receive the regeneration and faith.

As I understand it limited atonement declares that all are not elect, and irresistible grace, as I understand it, says that whoever God sees fit to elect will receive the gift of faith and believe. Is my explanation correct, and am I understanding it rightly ?

Yes, I agree with you. I'm not disputing particular redemption or total depravity in any way. I'm trying to account for "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." I'm dissatisfied with the theological gymnastics (from my perspective) we have to jump through to qualify what seems to be a simple truth. Ursinus said:

"The reason of the former lies in this, that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith. For it cannot be said to be insufficient, unless we give countenance to that horrible blasphemy (which God forbid!) that some blame of the destruction of the ungodly results from a defect in the merit of the mediator. The reason of the latter is, because all the elect, or such as believe, and they alone, do apply unto themselves by faith the merit of Christ's death, together with the efficacy thereof, by which they obtain righteousness, and life according as it is said."

This almost exactly echoes Dort 2nd head articles 3-8.

I'm going to give it a rest at least through Sunday. Perhaps I'm just not stating things very clearly...
 
I'm dissatisfied with the theological gymnastics (from my perspective) we have to jump through to qualify what seems to be a simple truth.

The truth is simple enough and has been repeatedly affirmed as true that he who believes in Him is not condemned but he who believes is condemned already.

Some might consider your own position "gymnastics" to agree that faith is an open hand of reception given by the Spirit and not of the "debt" sort. The kind of distinctions your calling for are no less complicated from Hodge (trying to parse out how the CoG is at the same time for all men but not at the same time for all men). Some would wonder how Hodge could affirm the WLC quotes I made that the COG is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. That seems pretty simple to me.

It's when we get into some distinctions that are not gymnastics but important qualifications.

Can a person be "in" the CoG who has never exercised saving faith?
Is a person "condemned already" because they were given the external offer of the CoG and were therefore in the CoG and are therefore condemned by their failure to obey the CoG?

Is the nature of the CoG itself one where men obey conditions of obedience and, failing those conditions of obedience, are promised either life or death?

I ask because it requires no mental gymnastics when we consider the simple truth of the nature of the Covenants themselves. As I stated, it is not at all unusual to think of men being externally called by the CoG and to speak of it in a manner of speaking. I don't know that I would speak that way as men being of the CoG in a certain sense but Hodge also qualifies that the substance (being in) the CoG is not true of them and so men are still in the CoW. You can't be in both at the same time. You are either in Christ or in Adam. There is no "halfway house" and there is no jumping back and forth such that the offer of the Gospel places a man temporarily *in* the CoG for the purposes of the exercise of faith and then condemns them therein to thrust them back into the CoW.

So let's stop talking of gymnastics and think through this Biblically and theologically. I certainly haven't seen any of the people you're quoting speak in a manner that makes me believe they've fully bought into the idea of a "condition of faith" in the CoG other than a condition of interest and I don't see how the rejection of Christ by the reprobate condemns them under the CoG when they're never in the CoG.
 
Yes, I agree with you. I'm not disputing particular redemption or total depravity in any way. I'm trying to account for "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." I'm dissatisfied with the theological gymnastics (from my perspective) we have to jump through to qualify what seems to be a simple truth.

Speaking with my Pastor on the topic, and the above quoted verses this morning, he said see Romans chapter 9. Of course he hasn't read the thread, and I may have given him a simplified version of your question, but he pretty much went to Romans 9:20, Romans 9:21.
 
Thanks for this. The Gospel Standards then make an unwarranted distinction when it comes to what men are called to do in obeying the gospel (Acts. 17.30, 2 Thess 1.8) by bringing the decree into it?

Yes. The gospel is "good news." It is sent from heaven with the intention to save sinners and it is indiscriminately proclaimed to all without making any qualifications. If election is made a qualifying mark for preaching the gospel, it will cease to be good news to sinners. At that point it would become something other than a message of grace and a promise of salvation. It might reveal something in the experience of the "elected" in relation to their deliverance from sin and judgment, but it could never be the means by which they are delivered. It could not address them as sinners and offer Christ with His benefits as the way of salvation. They would always have to be assured of their election in the first place.

Am I right in understanding that the atonement is in reference to the elect (definite), and that the gospel offer goes all out to all on the grounds of the true promise of God that all who believe will be saved (indefinite)?

That is it in a nutshell. If the atonement were indefinite the gospel would have to require something to make it definite. At that point the gospel would be a new law offering salvation on moral conditions to be fulfilled by men. The sinner could never receive this as good news because he would never feel he has adequately fulfilled the conditions imposed on him by the justice of God. This so-called gospel would then just be another witness accusing his conscience that he is a sinner.

On the other hand, if the gospel were definite it could not address men as sinners. It would always require some pre-existing quality which distinguished one sinner from another. At that point no sinner could know the gospel was for him without first finding some qualification in himself.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism fall in opposite directions from the evangelical reformed faith, but they end up together at the bottom of the circle.
 
it neglects the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace distinction that is in faith itself.

Yes; well noted, Rich. We have had a quotation from Rutherford's Covenant of Life which makes this very point: "the Lord hath decreed to deny the grace, by which they may or can fulfill the condition of the promise, which is proper to the Law, as it is peculiar to the Gospel, that the Lord both gives the mercy promised and also the grace to fulfill the condition of the promise."

If one denies that the law commands faith and the gospel gives grace there will be a confusion of the two covenants and the nature of saving faith will be misunderstood.
 
Even though it is rightly said that faith is the empty hand that receives Christ and his righteousness, it is still nevertheless a condition of salvation.

Have you fulfilled this condition, Tim?

How is a sinner ever going to fulfil a moral condition laid upon his conscience by the righteous Lord?

Every time I think about faith as a condition of salvation, I end up crying, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

Consider Thomas Boston:

"in the order of the covenant of grace, forasmuch as the having of the Spirit must go before faith, faith before justification, justification before sanctification, holiness before heaven's happiness; these may be called conditions in the covenant of grace, to wit, conditions of certain connection: and this belongs to the established order of the promises of the covenant, which are contradistinguished to the condition of the covenant. Howbeit such conditions can in no proper sense be called the condition or conditions of the covenant of grace, more than the buyer's receiving of the commodity can be called the condition of the covenant or bargain of sale. But the condition of the covenant of grace, properly so called, is, Christ in the form of a bond-servant, as last Adam, Representative, Kinsman-Redeemer, Surety, and Priest, his fulfilling all righteousness owing in virtue of the broken covenant of works, unto God, by his spiritual seed."
 
Have you fulfilled this condition, Tim?

The way I understand it, yes, by the grace of God that met the condition when He gave me faith. Certainly this faith was not produced by me because I have no moral ability to produce it left to myself.

Rich,

I was under the impression that even though the CoG is unilaterally imposed, by definition it contains conditions, responsibilities and vows/promises from both parties. Am I wrong on this?

"And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." (Gen. 17:14)

I'm wondering how it's possible to break this covenant when it had nothing to do with those who break it?

I agree that we are either in or out of the CoG, but it seems that you are not seeing the relationship that the covenant has to those outside of it. I think Hodge is exceptionally helpful on this point. Also, I'm not saying that the way we understand these doctrines systematially are necessarily simple to understand (e.g. CoG, CoR), but the simple truth that I see are the conditions set forth.

I've formulated some questions that may be helpful so that we're on the same page. Again, I am not trying to come across as one who has this all figured out. I am simply trying to understand how our systematics works with scripture. Again, I'm willing to be wrong but would like to understand it before simply agreeing for the sake of agreement.

1. When are the elect in the CoG, upon election or faith?

2. When do the elect receive atonement?

3. Is the Noahic Covenant part of the CoG?
3a. If "yes," then does the CoG have reference to all men though they are not in that covenant?
3b. Do all men receive blessings from the CoG?
3c. If "yes," is this coincidental or by design?

I really do appreciate you engaging me in this. I'm really not trying to be argumentative.
 
Boston is helpful concerning the above...

4. The covenant of grace is absolute, and not conditional to us. For being made with Christ, as representative of his seed, all the conditions of it were laid on him, and fulfilled by him. Wherefore all that remains of it to be accomplished, is, the fulfilling of the promises unto him and his spiritual seed; even as it would have been in the case of the first covenant, if once the first Adam had fulfilled the condition thereof.

6. Lastly, The way to enter personally into the covenant of grace so as to partake of the benefits thereof, unto salvation, is, to unite with Christ the head of the covenant by faith. Being thus ingrafted into him, ye shall partake of all that happiness which is secured to Christ mystical, in the everlasting covenant: even as through your becoming children of Adam, by natural generation, ye are personally entered into the first covenant, so as to fall under that sin and death which passed upon all men, by the breach thereof, Rom. 5:12.

Inf. 1. What remains for sinners, that they may be personally and savingly in covenant with God, is not, as parties contractors and undertakers, to make a covenant with him for life and salvation; but only, to take hold of God’s covenant already made from eternity, between the Father and Christ the second Adam, and revealed and offered to us in the gospel, Isa. 56:4, 6.

Our part then, in this case, is only to take hold of God’s covenant made already, and offered and exhibited to us in the gospel. This hold is taken by faith; which is, in Scripture account, the hand of the soul, John 1:12.

And this you do by taking hold of Christ in the free promise of the gospel; believing that he is held forth to you in particular, confiding and trusting in him as your Saviour, for your salvation from sin and wrath, upon the ground of God’s faithfulness in the promise, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life, for he is given for a covenant to you, Isa. 49:8; and to receive him, is to believe on his name, John 1:12.

The object of the administration of the covenant, is, sinners of mankind indefinitely: that is to say, Christ is empowered, by commission from his Father, to administrate the covenant of grace to any of all mankind, the sinners of the family of Adam without exception: he is authorized to receive them into the covenant, and to confer on them all the benefits thereof, to their eternal salvation; according to the settled order of the covenant. The election of particular persons is a secret, not to be discovered in the administration of the covenant, according to the established order thereof, till such time as the sinner have received the covenant, by coming personally into it. And the extent of the administration is not founded on election, but on the sufficiency of Christ’s obedience and death for the salvation of all; neither is it regulated thereby, but by the fulness of power in heaven and earth given to Jesus Christ, as a reward of his becoming obedient even unto death.

Wherefore we conclude, that sinners of mankind indefinitely are the object of Christ’s administration of the covenant; that he is empowered to administer it to you, and every one of you, whatever you are, or have been; and that you must either take hold of the covenant for life and salvation, or perish as despisers of it, since ye have heard the gospel.

Thus, from eternity, the covenant of works, in all the parts and appurtenances thereof, was before the eternal mind; though being made with a mere man, it could not actually be entered into, till once man was created.

1. The unseen guard of the covenant is under his hand. There is given unto him all power over natural and spiritual things, to manage the same for the preservation, protection, and restraint of those sometime to be brought into the covenant; while yet they are strangers from it, and neither perceive the guard about them, nor the commander thereof: John 5:22, “The Father—hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” Hos. 11:3, “I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms, but they knew not that I healed them.”

2. The quickening Spirit of the covenant is in him, whereby to quicken dead sinners, and cause them to live. The Spirit of life behoved to be purchased for sinners, otherwise there was no life for them. Now, the fulness thereof is purchased, and actually lodged in the Mediator, according to the covenant.

3. The righteousness of the covenant is in him, whereby to justify the ungodly that have no righteousness of their own

5. The covenant fulness of the Spirit of sanctification is in him, whereby to make sinners holy: Col. 1:19, “It pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell.” John 1:16, “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.”

6. The establishing grace of the covenant is in him, whereby to cause the most fickle and inconstant, once in him, to persevere unto the end: Jude, ver. 1, “Them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ.”

7. The temporal things of the covenant are all in his hand, whereby to provide for, and afford protection to his people, during their continuance in this world.

8. The covenant-fulness of power over death and the grave is in his hand, whereby to disarm death of its sting, and bring about a glorious resurrection. “I,” saith he, “have the keys of hell and of death,” Rev. 1:18.

9. Lastly, The eternal consummate happiness of the covenant is in his hand, whereby to render the souls of his people happy immediately after death, and then soul and body together happy at the last day: for all power in heaven is given him.

Boston, Thomas. The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: Human Nature in Its Fourfold State and a View of the Covenant of Grace. Ed. Samuel M‘Millan. Vol. 8. Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1850. Print.
 
Have you fulfilled this condition, Tim?

The way I understand it, yes, by the grace of God that met the condition when He gave me faith. Certainly this faith was not produced by me because I have no moral ability to produce it left to myself.

God does not accept, receive, and rest upon Christ alone for salvation. This is something the sinner does. Faith is a gift of God, but it is exercised by the sinner. As a gift of God it is perfect, as with all God's gifts. As exercised by the sinner it is imperfect, and thus requires the righteousness of Christ in order to be acceptable. The sinner, even as enabled by grace, is never able to fulfil his duty to believe and meet the condition you are laying on him for his salvation. This is a burden grievous to be borne. That is why Jesus invited the heavy laden to come unto Him to find rest for their souls.
 
I was under the impression that even though the CoG is unilaterally imposed, by definition it contains conditions, responsibilities and vows/promises from both parties

The way I understand it to have been explained by the Puritans and Reformed writers generally is that viewed as a testament, the CofG is unconditional, but viewed as a covenant (ie. the administration) it is conditional.

If we don't understand the administration of the covenant to be conditional, how can it be made with us and our children (Gen 17:7), or how can we be broken off (Rom 11), or how can God's people be accused of not being "steadfast in covenant"?
 
1. When are the elect in the CoG, upon election or faith?

2. When do the elect receive atonement?

3. Is the Noahic Covenant part of the CoG?
3a. If "yes," then does the CoG have reference to all men though they are not in that covenant?
3b. Do all men receive blessings from the CoG?
3c. If "yes," is this coincidental or by design?

Let's see if these quotes help:

Reformed theologians did not deny the conditionality or two-sidedness of the covenant of grace. They all agreed that faith in Christ was the condition required for a sinner to be translated from a state of wrath to a state of grace. As Stephen Charnock (1628–1680) notes, “Faith is the condition God requires to justification; but not a dead, but an active faith.”14 They were also careful to distinguish between certain types of conditions, namely, antecedent and consequent conditions. This important distinction sheds light on the various theological debates that took place in seventeenth-century England, particularly with reference to the Antinomians, who taught that faith followed justification.15 According to views expressed in the sermons of Tobias Crisp (1600–1643) on John 2:1–2, the elect are justified and reconciled to God before they believe, so that faith is not the instrumental cause of justification

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 307). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

In his response to Crisp and the Antinomians, John Flavel claims that the controversy is not about consequent conditions (things required after the believer is instated into covenant with God), but rather about whether we may speak of antecedent conditions (things required beforehand, in order to being instated into covenant with God) in the covenant of grace. He considers this discussion from two distinct vantage points: (1) the covenant made with Christ and (2) the application of the benefits of the covenant to sinners.17 With regard to the former, Flavel acknowledges that no condition is required on man’s part, “but depends purely and only upon the Grace of God, and Merit of Christ.”18 Francis Roberts likewise affirms that there are no antecedent conditions on man’s part, because there is nothing that sinners can do to merit anything from God or move God to action, such as bringing man into covenant with God: “All such Antecedent Conditions we utterly disclaim, as wholly inconsistent with this gratuitous Gospel-Covenant of Faith. Antecedent Impulsives or Motives in man, we leave to the Remonstrants and Papists.”19 But Flavel considers whether the condition of faith may be understood as antecedent in the application of salvation. Thus he distinguishes between meritorious acts and nonmeritorious acts:

1. Such Antecedent Conditions which have the force of a meritorious and impulsive Cause, which being performed by the proper strength of Nature, or at most by the help of common assisting Grace, do give a Man a right to the reward or blessings of the Covenant. And in this sense we utterly disclaim antecedent Conditions.…
2. An Antecedent Condition signifying no more than an Act of ours, which though it be neither perfect in every degree, nor in the least meritorious of the benefit conferred; nor performed in our own natural strength; yet according to the constitution of the Covenant, is required of us in order to the blessings consequent thereupon by virtue of the Promise: and consequently the benefits and mercies granted in the Promise in this order are, and must be suspended by the Donor or Disposer of them, until it be performed. Such a Condition we affirm Faith to be.20

Based upon this distinction, Flavel affirms faith to be an antecedent condition in terms of a nonmeritorious act required of us in order to receive the application of the benefits of the covenant of grace. But given the controversy that surrounds this subject, he makes a further (important) distinction between faith “essentially” considered and faith considered “organically and instrumentally.” Faith essentially (i.e., in terms of the essence of faith) considered refers to obedience, “and in that respect we exclude it from justifying our persons, or entitling us to the saving-mercies of the New Covenant.”21 However, faith “organically” considered refers to its instrumentality, “as it receives Christ … and so gives us power to become the Sons of God; it being impossible for any Man to partake of the saving benefits of the Covenant, but as he is united to Christ.”22 Faith is the necessary antecedent condition—the causa sine qua non—of the covenant. Many Antinomians denied that faith was an antecedent condition of the covenant, and thus they held to a personal justification either from eternity or from the time of the death of Christ.


Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 307–308). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

On the surface, there appears to be disagreement among the Reformed orthodox theologians on whether faith may be understood as an antecedent condition of salvation. For example, Patrick Gillespie (1617–1675) argues that the conditions of the covenant of grace are consequent conditions, but notes that these conditions, including faith, “denote no causality, nor proper efficiency in the condition, with respect to the thing promised, but an instrumentality and connexion, and thus faith hath no proper efficiency in our Justification, but only an instrumentality.”24 When Gillespie and Roberts affirm that there are no antecedent conditions in our salvation, they have in mind the same concept that Flavel speaks of when he refers to conditions that are either meritorious or “impulsive” (motivating) causes of God’s covenant blessings.

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 308–309). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.
The claim that receiving the benefits of the covenant of grace depends on meeting the condition of faith in the Mediator, Jesus Christ, is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which describes the covenant of grace as God’s offer to sinners of life and salvation, but “requiring of them faith in [Christ], that they may be saved” (7.3). More explicitly, the Larger Catechism, Question 32, asks, “How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?” The answer likewise describes the covenant as God’s offer to sinners of life and salvation in His Son, “and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him” (see also Q. 153). Whatever reservations they may have had about referring to conditions in the covenant, the aforementioned Reformed theologians clearly saw the need to speak of the condition or requirement of faith for a sinner to receive the benefits of Christ’s mediatorial work. They did so on exegetical grounds and in response to the rising influence of antinomianism during the mid-seventeenth century. But they affirmed more than the necessity of faith; closely tied to the antecedent condition of faith was the consequent condition of evangelical obedience to God’s law.

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 309–310). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.
 
Have you fulfilled this condition, Tim?

The way I understand it, yes, by the grace of God that met the condition when He gave me faith. Certainly this faith was not produced by me because I have no moral ability to produce it left to myself.

God does not accept, receive, and rest upon Christ alone for salvation. This is something the sinner does. Faith is a gift of God, but it is exercised by the sinner. As a gift of God it is perfect, as with all God's gifts. As exercised by the sinner it is imperfect, and thus requires the righteousness of Christ in order to be acceptable. The sinner, even as enabled by grace, is never able to fulfil his duty to believe and meet the condition you are laying on him for his salvation. This is a burden grievous to be borne. That is why Jesus invited the heavy laden to come unto Him to find rest for their souls.

I would like to add that faith is the means by which salvation is received. Faith is the instrument that receives salvation.

We are not declared righteous on the basis of our faith. We are declared righteous on the basis of Christ's righteousness credited to our account.
 
"The purchased redemption of the elect is appropriated by faith, a condition that God certainly meets when He regenerates a person and gives them faith, hence it can be offered to all upon appropriation by faith and truly rejected because the reprobate refuse to accept Christ by faith to meet this requirement (they are not able). Therefore they truly reject salvation."

When you say that faith is a condition that God meets, do you mean that God causes the elect to place their faith in Christ?

It is true that God causes the elect to place their faith in Christ, but it is not appropriate to say that faith is a condition that God certainly meets. Sinners need to place their faith in Christ for their salvation, but God doesn't need to do that.

God commands everyone to believe in Christ for their salvation.

Faith is the means by which salvation is received. However, this does not mean that we are justified on the basis of our faith.
 
Rich,

Thanks for quoting Beeke. I agree with it. I really don't know how anything I said would not be in agreement with it...

I'm just trying to understand how scripture can speak about rejecting salvation when salvation is not offered on any conditions? Is it not biblical to say that someone is condemned because they did not believe? If this does not hold forth a condition, what would you prefer to call it?

Also, I still think it makes things clearer to not say that Christ is the Mediator and a party in the CoG. Did Christ need a Mediator? If He was a party and the Mediator between the parties, it seems like we would have to say that He mediated between Himself and God. It seems like many of the problems of this conversation arise from this point which is where I think Hodge is helpful...
 
I'm just trying to understand how scripture can speak about rejecting salvation when salvation is not offered on any conditions? Is it not biblical to say that someone is condemned because they did not believe? If this does not hold forth a condition, what would you prefer to call it?
I think it's both true that the person who rejects Christ has rejected a free offer to sinners. Yes, they are condemned for not believing. Keep in mind, however, that the issue dealing with conditions within the CoG is whether the person to whom the promises belong exercises a condition to interest antecedent to his being brought into the CoG in a historical sense. It's confusing, I know, but we need not doubt that a person is under duty to believe the Gospel call without also saying that his failure to obey the Gospel is equivalent to him doing the opposite of exercising a condition to interest. The CoG has an external administration in Word and Sacrament and all who are brought near that external administration are called to believe - they are called to press in. They are not,in themselves, able to do so but they are nevertheless called. The call either condemns those who remain in rebellious unbelief or it is used of the Spirit to bring the sinner near to Christ.

IWith respect to Christ being the Mediator of the CoG, I don't know that anyone has ever implied that He mediated grace to Himself. He fulfilled all righteousness. He was not a subject of grace but, it is by His mediation that we are the recipients of grace.
 
What exactly is a condition of interest?

Faith as a condition to interest is what you agreed with in the quotes from A Puritan Theology. It is faith "organically" considered.

faith “organically” considered refers to its instrumentality, “as it receives Christ … and so gives us power to become the Sons of God; it being impossible for any Man to partake of the saving benefits of the Covenant, but as he is united to Christ.”22 Faith is the necessary antecedent condition—the causa sine qua non—of the covenant.
 
I wrote a blog post on the topic some time ago. I've copied some of the content below:

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is talking about the issue of brothers and sisters in Christ who have different convictions about issues, using the language of “weak consciences.” He encourages the believers to not be a stumbling block to others in their own choices. And then in verse 10-12, he makes an interesting point:
For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
Notice the reason that Paul gives for not being a stumbling block to a brother: he is one for whom Christ died. In other words, how can you trample on another brother so as to cause him to sin when he is one of the very people for whom Christ’s precious blood was spilt? How can you not take great care to love and build up that brother rather than tear him down?
Thus limited atonement, the teaching that Jesus died for his elect, ought to be one of the greatest motivators of church unity that we have. Jesus died for our brothers and sisters. That fact ought to give us great pause in the midst of conflict, in the midst of division, in situations requiring reconciliation. The doctrine ought to be a motivator to greater love and kindness for those who name the name of Christ.
Ironically, those who hold to limited atonement have at times had the label of being ungracious and unloving in the way they present their beliefs. All we can say to that is what Paul says about sin abounding in Romans 6: may it never be! Perhaps one way to see whether or not we have really understood limited atonement is to see if we can present in such a way that our love for the brothers and sisters for whom Christ died simply shines through. And perhaps, when we Reformed people explain what we believe to be Scripture’s teaching on this topic, this ought to be a repeated reminder to make sure that right beliefs are ever accompanied by right behavior.
 
What exactly is a condition of interest?

Faith as a condition to interest is what you agreed with in the quotes from A Puritan Theology. It is faith "organically" considered.

faith “organically” considered refers to its instrumentality, “as it receives Christ … and so gives us power to become the Sons of God; it being impossible for any Man to partake of the saving benefits of the Covenant, but as he is united to Christ.”22 Faith is the necessary antecedent condition—the causa sine qua non—of the covenant.

Sorry, I didn't mean to change the word. Yes, still confused as to the distinction. I'm trying to figure out why it was so wrong for me to say that faith was any kind of a condition while you provided:

The claim that receiving the benefits of the covenant of grace depends on meeting the condition of faith in the Mediator, Jesus Christ, is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith...

Haven't I been saying all along that faith was a condition of being in the CoG? I thought I made it clear that the condition had nothing to do with merit. Is there a difference between saying "receiving the benefits of the covenant of grace depends on meeting the condition of faith in the Mediator" and "faith is a condition of salvation"? I'm really struggling to see a difference...

I'm certainly not using the word "condition" to mean that God looked through time to see who would meet the condition in themselves and elected them in response to His foreknowledge.
 
Another question: Would you say that God is in covenant with the elect in eternity?

(I may be dense, but I'm trying to understand how you're describing it. Thanks for your patience!)
 
Haven't I been saying all along that faith was a condition of being in the CoG? I thought I made it clear that the condition had nothing to do with merit. Is there a difference between saying "receiving the benefits of the covenant of grace depends on meeting the condition of faith in the Mediator" and "faith is a condition of salvation"? I'm really struggling to see a difference...
It seems to me that we needed to come to understand each other on this. If you agreed with Flavel (and others') distinction above then you would need to qualify what you mean by the word "condition". The idea of "condition" here is used antecedantly to describe a receiving action that belongs to the elect along opening up their hands to the Savior offered. That's what saving faith is. You can't take that category of condition and look at it and say: "Well the elect exercise saving faith as a condition to interest in the Covenant and, therefore, it is a condition and sinners are condemned as a result that they don't meet that condition."

I'm not trying to be mean here but summarizing where we've sort of twisted and turned.
 
If I agree with Hodge below, would this be concerning to you?

Those who ignore the distinction between the covenants of redemption and of grace, merging the latter in the former, of course represent the parties to the covenant to be God and Christ as the head and representative of his own people. And therefore mankind, as such, are in no sense parties. All that is important is, that we should adopt such a mode of representation as will comprehend the various facts recognized in the Scriptures. It is one of those facts that salvation is offered to all men on the condition of faith in Christ. And therefore to that extent, or, in a sense which accounts for that fact, the covenant of grace is made with all men. The great sin of those who hear the gospel is that they refuse to accept of that covenant and therefore place themselves without its pale.
This is a faithful saying:

"For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself." (2 Tim. 2:11-13)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top