John Calvin (1509-1564)
[1] “He first says, I will strike with them a perpetual covenant … the manner or method is also expressed, that he would put his fear in their hearts, that they might never depart from him. This is the same doctrine with what we have already seen; it is now repeated, but in other words; and thus God, as I said, more fully illustrates his favour, he says then that he would put his fear in the hearts of men. We now see how that puerile fiction is refuted, with which the Papists are inebriated, when they say that God’s grace co-operates, because the Spirit helps the infirmity of men, as though they themselves brought something of their own and were co-operators. But the Prophet here testifies that the fear of God is the work and gift of the Holy Spirit. He does not say I will give them power to fear me, but I will put my fear in their hearts We then see that he again shews that the Spirit works effectually in us, so as to form anew our affections, and does not leave us capable of turning or suspended. The same thing is said by Ezekiel, ‘And I will cause them to fear me’ (Ezekiel 36:27). Thus the same doctrine is confirmed there, for it is said, that God would make Israel to fear him, not that they might be able to fear him. He adds again, That they may not depart from me. We see that clearly refuted are those foolish notions about neutral grace, which offers only power to men, which they may afterwards receive if they please; for the Prophet says, ‘that they may not depart from me.’ Thus he again shews that perseverance, no less than the commencement of acting rightly, is the gift of God and the work of the Holy Spirit: and as I have already said, were God only to form our hearts once, that we might be disposed to act rightly, the devil might, at any moment, entice us, by his wiles, from the right way, or, as he employs sudden and violent attacks, he might drive us up and down as he pleases. To rule us then for one hour would avail us nothing, except God preserved us through the whole course of our life, and led us on to the end. It hence then follows, that the whole course of our life is directed by the Spirit of God, so that the end no less than the beginning of good works ought to be ascribed to his grace. Whatever merit then men claim for themselves, they take away from God, and thus they become sacrilegious” (Comm. on Jer. 32:40).
[2] “Now it follows, and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. Under these words the Prophet doubtless includes that gratuitous pardon by which God reconciles sinners to himself. And truly, it would not be sufficient for us to be renewed in obedience to God’s righteousness unless his paternal indulgence, by which he pardons our infirmities, is added. This is expressed more clearly by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:33) and by our Prophet (Ezekiel 36:25-27) but it is the mark of a Scripture phrase. For as often as God promises the sons of Abraham that they should be his people, that promise has no other foundation than in his gratuitous covenant which contains the forgiveness of sins. Hence it is as if the Prophet had added, that God would expiate all the faults of his people. For our safety is contained in these two members, that God follows us with his paternal favour, while he bears with us, and does not call us up for judgment, but buries our sins, as is said in Psalm 32:1-2, ‘Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute his iniquities.’ It follows, on the other side, that all are wretched and accursed to whom he does impute them. If any one object, that we have no need of pardon when we do not sin, the answer is easy, that the faithful are never so regenerated as to fulfil the law of God. They aspire to keep his commands, and that too with a serious and sincere affection; but because some defects always remain, therefore they are guilty, and their guilt cannot be blotted out otherwise than by expiation when God pardons them. But we know that there were under the law rites prescribed for expiating their sins: this was the meaning of sprinkling by water and the pouring out of blood; but we know that these ceremonies were of no value in themselves, except as far as they directed the people’s faith to Christ. Hence, whenever our salvation is; treated of, let these two things be remembered, that we cannot be reckoned God’s sons unless he freely expiate our sins, and thus reconcile himself to us: and then not unless he also rule us by his Spirit. Now we must hold, that what God hath joined man ought not to separate. Those, therefore, who through relying on the indulgence of God permit themselves to give way to sin, rend his covenant and impiously sever it. Why so? because God has joined these two things together, viz., that he will be propitious to his sons, and will also renew their hearts, Hence those who lay hold of only one member of the sentence, namely, the pardon, because God bears with them, and omit the other, are as false and sacrilegious as if they abolished half of God’s covenant. Therefore we must hold what I have said, namely, that under these words reconciliation is pointed out, by which it happens that God does not impute their sins to his own. Lastly, let us remark that the whole perfection of our salvation has been placed in this, if God reckons us among his people. As it is said in Psalm 33:12, ‘Happy is the people to whom Jehovah is their God. There solid happiness is described, namely, when God deems any people worthy of this honour of belonging peculiarly to himself. Only let him be propitious to us, and then we shall not be anxious, because our salvation is secure” (Comm. on Eze. 11:20).
[3] “Thou hast then sworn to our fathers from the days of old. The faithful take for granted that God had promised to the fathers that his covenant would be perpetual; for he did not only say to Abraham, I will be thy God, but he also added, and of thy seed for ever. Since, then, the faithful knew that the covenant of God was to be perpetual and inviolable, and also knew that it was to be continued from the fathers to their children, and that it was once promulgated for this end, that the fathers might deliver it as by the hand to their children; they therefore doubted not but that it would be perpetual. How so? for thou hast sworn to our fathers; that is, they knew that God not only promised, but that having interposed an oath, by which God designed to confirm that covenant, he greatly honoured it, that it might be unhesitatingly received by the chosen people. As then the faithful knew that God in a manner bound himself to them, they confidently solicited him, really to show himself to be such as he had declared he would be to his own elect” (Comm. on Micah 7:20).
[4] “… the promise has respect to faith, and the law to works. Faith receives what is freely given, but to works a reward is paid. And he [i.e., Paul] immediately adds, God gave it to Abraham, not by requiring some sort of compensation on his part, but by free promise; for if you view it as conditional, the word gave (kecharistai), would be utterly inapplicable” (Comm. on Gal. 3:18).
Francis Turretin (1623-1687): “The promises of the covenant of grace are not absolutely and simply universal because in the Old Testament they were not promulgated to all (Dt. 7:7, 8; Ps. 147:19, 20; Acts 14:16; 17:30). Nor are they promulgated in the New Testament, since it is plain that the gospel was preached successively and there are still many nations to whom that preaching neither formerly, nor at this day, has reached. Rather the promises are only relatively and limitedly universal from the twofold manner of the divine dispensation; the one external as to obligation (which is extended indiscriminately to classes of individuals, although not to individuals of classes); the other internal (as to application and fruit) with respect to all and each believer, without distinction of nation, sex or age and condition. Hence frequently that universality is restricted to believers from the Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:22, 23; 10:12; Acts 10:43; 13:43; Jn. 3:16). And the nature of the promises (which can only be received by faith) demands this (Gal. 3:14; Rom. 4:13). Now all men have not faith (2 Thess. 3:2), but only the elect (Tit. 1:1, 2). And these are the true and proper object of them, who on that account are called ‘the children of promise’ (Rom. 9:6, 7)” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992], vol. 2, p. 215).
James Fraser of Alness (1700-1769): “If the tenor of the covenant were thus: I will not cease to do them good, on condition that they cleave to me, obey me, and not depart from me; if, I say, the covenant amounted to no more than this, it would be a law-covenant, even if there should be some abatement in the condition, in condescension to human infirmity. Whereas the covenant of grace is a covenant of promise, that gives security, by mere grace, on all hands, with regard to the sanctification of God’s people, and their preservation in a state and course of holiness, to their final salvation. The right inheritance is not by the law, or by works. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by GRACE, to the end the PROMISE might be SURE to all the seed (Rom. iv. 14, 16)” (A Treatise on Sanctification: An Explication of Romans Chapters 6, 7 & 8:1-4 [Audubon, NJ: Old Paths Publications, 1992]. p. 411; emphases Fraser’s).
James H. Thornwell (1812-1862): “Any plan of salvation, therefore, which lays down anything to be done by man, no matter what and no matter how, whether with or without assistance of Divine grace as a condition of Divine favour, is a legal plan … The term condition is sometimes employed to express that which is prior in the order of nature or of time. In this sense it is what Boston calls a condition of connection; it denotes that one of them must take place before another in consequence of their connection in the scheme of grace. Thus, in this sense, faith is a condition of justification; not that it is a something to be done, for the sake of which we are justified, but we must be united to Christ before we can become partakers of his everlasting righteousness. Holiness is a condition of seeing God; it is necessary to the full enjoyment of the beatific vision. The successive rounds [i.e., rungs] in the ladder must be passed before we reach the top. When used in this sense, the word condition conveys no dangerous idea, but as an ambiguous word liable to be abused it should be laid aside by all sound ministers of the Gospel. If, then, God has made our salvation dependent upon anything to be performed by us, it is not a matter of grace, but of works. The notion that legalism is avoided by ascribing our power to comply with the conditions to the grace of God is a mere evasion of the difficulty … Neither is the principle affected by the thing required to be done; whether it be obedience to the whole moral law, or only sincere obedience, or only faith, repentance and perseverance which are required, something is to be done—a condition is prescribed—and God’s favour ultimately turns upon man’s will. The principle of works is as fully recognized in a mild law as in a strict one” (“Antinomianism,” in The Collected Writings of James Henry Thornwell [Carlisle, PA: Banner, repr. 1974], vol. 2, pp. 392, 393, 394; italics Thornwell’s).
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921)
[1] “In the beginning Reformed theologians spoke freely of ‘the conditions’ of the covenant. But after the nature of the covenant of grace had been more carefully considered and had to be defended against Catholics, Lutherans, and Remonstrants, many of them took exception to the term and avoided it. [Here Bavinck footnotes Olevianus, Junius, Cocceius, Cloppenburg, Witsius, Francken, a Brakel, Comrie and Vitringa as among those who avoided speaking of conditions in the covenant.] In the covenant of grace, that is, in the gospel, which is the proclamation of the covenant of grace, there are actually no demands and no conditions” (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006], pp. 229-230).
[2] “After all, when the covenant of grace is separated from election, it ceases to be a covenant of grace and becomes again a covenant of works. Election implies that God grants man freely and out of grace the salvation which man has forfeited and which he can never again achieve in his own strength. But if this salvation is not the sheer gift of grace but in some way depends upon the conduct of men, then the covenant of grace is converted into a covenant of works. Man must then satisfy some condition in order to inherit eternal life. In this, grace and works stand at opposite poles from each other and are mutually exclusive. If salvation is by grace it is no longer by works, or otherwise grace is no longer grace. And if it is by works, it is not by grace, or otherwise works are not works (Rom. 11:6). The Christian religion has this unique characteristic, that is the religion of redemption, sheer grace, pure religion. But it can be recognized and maintained as such only if it is a free gift coming up out of the counsel of God alone. So far from election and the covenant of grace forming a contrast of opposites, the election is the basis and guarantee, the heart and core, of the covenant of grace. And it is so indispensably important to cling to this close relationship because the least weakening of it not merely robs one of the true insight into the achieving and application of salvation, but also robs the believers of their only and sure comfort in the practice of their spiritual life” (Our Reasonable Faith, trans. Henry Zylstra [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1956], pp. 272-273).
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965): “God, therefore, by His grace not only gives the gift of faith as it is implanted in the moment of regeneration, but He also gives actual belief. And therefore, as the article states, ‘man is himself rightly said to believe,’ as the fruit of God’s influence upon him. But there are no antecedent conditions which man must fulfill in order to receive that faith or the gift of active belief. God causes him to become an active believer, and that, too, unconditionally. And by faith he performs the act of repentance. And even that act of repentance is a gift of God to him and is certainly not a condition which he must fulfill in order to receive salvation. Now the question is: can it be said that faith and repentance are themselves conditions? But we ask: conditions unto what? Certainly not unto salvation in any sense of the word. For by faith the sinner is implanted into Christ, into His death and resurrection, and therefore he has salvation. By faith he possesses Christ and all his benefits. He cannot be said to be justified on condition of faith” (“As to Conditions,” Standard Bearer, vol. 26, issue 14 [15 April, 1950], p. 317).
Sinclair B. Ferguson (1948-)
[1] “The expression ‘condition’ [with regard to God’s covenant] was to prove highly problematic in reformed theology. ‘Response’, ‘responsibility’, or even ‘obligation’ would have been safer expressions” (John Owen on the Christian Life [Edinburgh: Banner, 1987], p. 31).
