John Calvin (1509-1564): “… 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 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): “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).
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921): “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).
Sinclair B. Ferguson (1948-): “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).
