I'm currently reading a very good book by Greg Nichols entitled Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants. I came to a particular section which I thought would be very helpful to my Hardshell friends who automatically discard the notions of conditions, necessities, etc. as Arminianism. The fact of the matter is that these terms are a most necessary addition to an explanation of how God saves sinners which the author correctly understands. I cannot help but comment on his comments and how they relate to the heretical system I used to teach and the light God has since granted.
Nichols wrote:
"Good men speak of the covenant
of grace as conditional to avoid errors and dangers."
Yes, such as the dangers which we
see in Hardshellism in which it is affirmed that faith, repentance, personal
holiness, and anything else subjective are not required for eternal
salvation. It is the failure of
Hardshells to recognize the need for retaining such terms as necessities, conditions, requirements, etc.
when discussing soteriology that they falsely accuse Calvinism as being the same
as Arminianism, in which these terms are frequently associated with works and
free-will. Seeing the latter as an
error, they then make an error of their own by rebelling to the opposite
extreme, discarding any and all notions of conditions,
and creating a theological system I think more fatal than the one against which
it rebelled. This truth was observed by Elder Thomas Mann who concluded that in rebelling to one error, the Hardshells who first invented this notion ended up overstating their case, and fell into another error, whereas the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle. I agree completely.
Nichols wrote:
"Further, when we say that the
covenant of grace is unconditional in essence, we must take care to avoid
fatalism. A fatalistic mentality would say, if God will certainly apply
redemption to his elect, then why pray, why preach, why parent? Rather, we
affirm, preach, pray, and parent, because God uses means. Unconditional in
essence doesn't equal absolute, without means, in fulfillment!"
I saw this fatalistic mentality all
throughout the years I was among my Hardshell brethren. Not only “why pray, why preach, why parent”,
but why believe and why repent? For
these are conditions are they not? And
so we would immediately flee from the idea that responsibility can be mentioned in the
same breath as eternal salvation so that we may remain do-nothings with respect to our own salvation and that of others.
Nichols makes an essential
distinction when he remarks that unconditional in essence does not equate to
unconditional in fulfillment! Amen! Here in my opinion is the key to unravelling
the whole conditional vs unconditional controversy. Here me, my Hardshell friends! Election is unconditional, agreed? Yet election is not the summation of what’s
called eternal salvation, so we err if we affirm that salvation is unconditional
simply because election is. Men were
unconditionally elected unto salvation, but as God works out the matter of
salvation in history means and conditions are employed to accomplish it both
FOR those and IN those whom He unconditionally elected! When I was excluded by
my former friends one of the things which began to be circulated was that
“Kevin does not understand that salvation is unconditional”. Oh no, Kevin understands it just fine. It is you who does not understand the distinction
between the decree of salvation and its administration.
Nichols wrote:
"We stand committed to teach
unconditional election, even if men abuse the doctrine. The covenant of grace
reflects and rests on this unconditional decree. Did God decree in eternity to
require faith and repentance for initial salvation and perseverance in faith
for final salvation? The answer is, yes. Does that make his decree conditional?
The answer is, no, because God also decrees to supply all he requires, and that
not for anything done by his elect. So also is his covenant of grace."
Faith and repentance belong not in the category of election,
which we agree is unconditional, but in the administration of salvation in
time, where things are required of men in order to be saved. These requirements are unconditional in the
sense that they are not accomplished by works and free-will, but are
conditional in the sense that they must be obtained by the elect somehow. The matter is solved in the teaching that
what God requires of His elect he freely gives them. Unfortunately, this is rejected by my
Hardshell friends who have so sliced and diced the scriptures that they are
left with the sad conclusion that the fulfillment of conditions are not to the
praise and glory of God but rather merited by so-called regenerated men, to the
praise of their works and free-will as they temporally
save themselves (Acts 2:40).
Perhaps the most helpful thing is to understand this fact. A condition is not necessarily the same thing
as an efficient cause, meaning that all accusations that Calvinists are
“adding” to the grace of God and blood of Christ are totally baseless. By a condition we simply mean that something
has to be in place for some transaction to occur. I could say that a garden hose is a condition
for my flowers to become wet, yet the life-giving source is in the water
itself, whereas the hose is merely the means through which it is conveyed. I could say that a new heart is a requirement
for a transplant, meaning only that the heart must be put safely in place
before the surgery can be called complete.
It is the same thing in the administration of salvation. The birth of Christ was a necessity which
needed to be met in order to the redemption of the family of God. Those who crucified our Lord were the means
by which He was placed on the cross (Acts 2:23). When it comes to God’s dealings with the
sinner himself, faith is a necessity in regeneration. We are regenerated by grace not at the
expense of it but through it (Eph. 2:8).
The sinner meets the condition by God’s gift of faith unto him in regeneration,
and this new birth cannot be considered as complete until it is there, just
like we would not consider heart surgery complete until a heart has been put in
place. The same holds true with final
salvation, as it too is through faith (1 Peter 1:5; Heb. 10:39). And when the scriptures look back from the perspective of those who have achieved it, it gives the impression that they met the requirements in their life. "
There most definitely are conditions to salvation when the term is used properly as Nichols does. It is , I think, because of my Hardshell friends' previous agenda against anything that gives an appearance of Arminianism that they fail to understand this or give it any consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment