You should get your hands on John von Rohr’s excellent work: “The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought”. He shows that pretty much all of the Reformed-leaning Puritans spoke about the conditionality of the covenant.

Of course, we know that we speak this way in the context of Reformed theology, which has other doctrines in view, namely, predestination, monergism, etc.

It’s a hard book to locate, but a good one to read, and very scholarly (i.e. lots of primary work).

Mark

Of course Turretin is correct. Isn’t he always? ;)

Owen writes pretty much the same thing:

“I do not say the covenant of grace is absolutely without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that covenant; but this I say, the principal promises thereof are not in the first place remunerative of our obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us in the covenant, and establishing or confirming the covenant (23:68-9).”

Protestant scholasticism/orthodoxy embraced the use of distinctions (Maccovius was a genius at this) for this very purpose.

Almost all of the Reformed orthodox used the language of conditionality to describe the covenant, beginning with Bullinger; but they also used the language of unconditionality. I think we should use both and be clear, like Owen and Turretin, what we mean by each term.

Best,
Mark

What you think of Mark Beach’s statement about Turretin’s understanding of the issue of conditionality when he (i.e Beach) writes:

Turretin’s point is simple: If the word condition is used in the broad sense, to include all of the above (i.e. deliverance from guilt and corruption–imputation and impartation)–which also means it is used in an improper sense–then repentance and all the other duties in the Covenant of Grace may be called conditions. However, if one is to use words properly, and to conceive of conditionality in the strict and proper sense, not merely in the sense of what must antecedently be present for the subsequent to come about , but especially in the sense of some causality being present–even if it is only an instrumental causality–then repentance and evangelical obedience are altogether and wholly excluded from functioning as conditions in the Covenant of Grace, or being such called. (p. 188 Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Covenant of Grace (Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2007))

Enjoying the blog!

Thanks!

I also appreciate your last comment about “conditions” in the new covenant. What you demonstrated from Owen seems to be fairly standard 17th century fare. LC #32 seems to point to this:

Q32: How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?

A32: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the CONDITION to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.

Faith is the condition in the sense that it is “required” of those in the covenant, but it is not an “antecedent” condition that causes or merits the grace offered in the covenant.

John Ball, in his “Treatise on the Covenant of Grace,” speaks similarly:

“For it [faith] doth not justify as it produceth good workes, but as it receiveth Chrift, though it cannot receive Christ, unless it brings forth good workes. A disposition to good workes is neccesary to justification, being the qualification of an active and lively faith. Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the ftate of justification, and so to our finall absolution, if God give opportunity: but they are not the cause of, but only a precedent qualification or condition to finall forgiveness and eternall bliss.” (20)

Interestingly both Ball and Owen (and the Second Helvetic) go back to the same starting point when dealing with the necessity of good works flowing from a true and lively faith: Christ himself. Since those united to him must necessarily be alive, true faith must also be living.

Well, before I get myself in trouble, I’d better stop. But thanks for the thoughtful post. It is truly a delight to be reminded that I have Christ’s righteousness which is alone sufficient for my justification, but also his life-giving power at work in my dead soul to make me alive to serve him.