Surely this statement must be true in light of the facts that the Triune God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11), and that all things work together for the good of His elect people (Rom. 8:28). Boston did not mean that believers are exempt from the effects of sin, either in themselves or in the world. What he meant was that a healthy doctrine of providence should transform the manner in which we regard our circumstances in life. The Lord has custom made every circumstance in our lives specifically for us individually and for our sanctification. We should not covet what someone else has because God has given us exactly what we need, including our trials. In this sense, the grass cannot be greener on the other side of the fence (or, “over the hedge”) because we must regard God’s providence in our lives as our own slice of paradise.

This thought does not mean that we “enjoy” our trials. Yet is it not a comfort to recognize that all of your physical suffering, emotional distress, betrayal from friends, trials in the church, etc. have been tailor made to be exactly what you need to grow in grace? In the teaching of Scripture, it is less important to be delivered from our trials than it is to consider what God is doing in us through our trials. This is why, in the wisdom of the Lord whether you realize it or not, your condition today is the paradise that God has set you down in.

Allow me to engage in some practical reflections. These observations have far reaching consequences for the human race. All faith ultimately rests upon the testimony of another rather than upon bare evidence. This is the primary point of John Owen’s (1616–1683) book, The Reason of Faith (Works, 3:1ff). Owen argued that it is the nature of faith to rest upon the authority of testimony.  For this reason, the primary reason why believers have faith in the divine authority of Scripture is that God Himself has spoken. In light of a Brakel’s comments, it is interesting that Adam and Eve accepted the word of the serpent without prior evidence. Their true trial was considering whether they would rest upon the authority of God alone, or upon the authority of a creature. This accurately describes the history of faith in the Triune God versus unbelief ever since man’s Fall into sin. Those who reject the Word of God act as though they do so upon evidence, but they have unknowingly believed the lie of Satan by faith. The ultimate lie of Satan is that man’s reason and judgment rather than God determines the nature of reality, truth and falsehood, and right and wrong. Was this not the sin of our first parents?

Today, people trust in the authority of scholars who assure them that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, or that Christianity has perverted the story of the “real Jesus.” People rest upon the authority of scientists to tell them about the origins of the universe rather than the Word of God. When individuals consider the diversity of religious opinions among humanity, many conclude that no one can know “the meaning of life” or that all truth is relative, otherwise all human beings would agree over these questions. The thread that ties all of these thought together is faith in the creature rather than faith in the creature. If man cannot determine truth by himself, then there must be no such thing as truth. Conversely, what man has determined to be “true” is true, regardless of what God or anyone else says to the contrary.

At the bottom of our thinking, we all rest upon the testimony of someone by faith. What a Brakel illustrates is that, like Adam and Eve, our faith either rests upon the Word of God or the word of a creature. Fallen human beings have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, by believing Satan’s original lie to our first parents. The question that continues to confront the human race continues to be, “Whose authority shall you receive by faith: God’s or the creatures?” Do not be devieved when the non-Christian tells you that you rest upon faith and that they rest upon reason and evidence. As with Adam and Eve, all reason and evidence begins with faith in some authority. Just as we receive justification by faith in Christ, our first parents received damnation by faith in the serpent.

(ADDENDUM: In another place, one friend has criticized me of reading Van Tillian presuppositionalism into Protestant Scholasticism. This is not a “scholarly” post, but a meditation, yet let me say here that I by no means impute Van Tillianism into the Protestant Scholastics such as a Brakel. There are significant differences between them. I will simply say this, let us hold to our differing positions on apologetics, yet be sure to read Richard Muller (PRRD vol. 1) on the manner in which the use of reason and natural theology shifted substantially in Reformed Orthodoxy following the Enlightenment. I fear that many modern discussions of apologetics do not adequately taken into account the diversity of views in the history of the Reformed tradition on this point.)

Goodwin and Owen both wrote works on justification (and on the Holy Spirit).  There are, of course, similarities, but there are also differences.  Goodwin had a special concern with assurance and his work is more pastoral than Owen’s.  Owen’s work is technically superb, but I would rate Goodwin’s work above Owen’s on account of better pastoral emphases.

In his work on justification, Goodwin had a burden to maintain the graciousness of the covenant of grace. Chief among his concerns was that graces and grace had been confused, not only by the Arminians, Socinians, and Catholics, but by some of his own (Calvinistic) brethren who were heavily emphasizing the conditional character of the covenant of grace. For example, Goodwin writes:

“When Paul disputes, as we do against the papists, that no man is justified by works; what! doth he mean external works only? No; but he excludes from our justification our whole righteousness, both root and branch, the inward as the root, and the outward as the branches, because under works of the law is comprehended a complete conformity to the law, and to what the law requires, and so he means hereby inward as well as outward holiness …. And thus when the law forbids any evil work, it forbids original sin as well as actual, for the law binds the whole man” (8:292).

Richard Sibbes, who was a significant influence on Goodwin, was careful to sharply distinguish between justification and sanctification. Indeed, confusing justification with either sanctification or regeneration was tantamount to deserting the faith.

“But some others there are amongst us, that regard not Christ and his satisfaction alone, but join faith and works together in justification; they will have other priests, and other intercessors than Christ. Alas! beloved, how are these men fallen from Christ to another gospel, as if Christ were not an all-sufficient Saviour, and able to deliver to the uttermost! What is the gospel but salvation and redemption by Christ alone?” (Works, 1:388)

Ussher makes a similar point when he speaks of sola fide: [justification is] not considered as a virtue inherent in us, working by love; but only as an instrument or hand of the soul stretched forth to lay hold on the Lord our righteousness” (Ussher, 193).

These sentiments are, of course, standard Westminster orthodoxy where justifying faith is “not because of those other graces which doth always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (WLC, 73).

For Goodwin, then, the unconditional nature of the covenant of grace is essential to the doctrine of justification and assurance. Goodwin concludes: “He [who comes to faith] cannot rest on promises conditional, for he sees no qualifications of faith or any grace in himself” (8:245). Goodwin is so concerned to not make faith a work, as the Arminians do, that he is far more comfortable speaking of the covenant of grace as unconditional.

This comes out in Goodwin’s doctrine of assurance that Mike Horton has written on.  Goodwin came to the opinion that the subjective element (internal graces) were becoming unhelpful to his people and so, in trying to evade an overly-subjective view of assurance, he looked to the unconditional nature of the covenant of grace while, at the same time, holding to a “sealing-of-the-Spirit” view where believers, some time later in their lives, receive full assurance of their faith through the Spirit’s work.  This may raise some eyebrows, but what Goodwin was trying to do was emphasize the unilateral, unconditional aspect of the covenant of grace. Horton doesn’t think Goodwin succeeded – nor do I – but it’s an interesting point of historical reference nevertheless.

“Wherefore, in this matter [i.e. justification] we are not speaking of a fictitious, empty, lazy and dead faith, but of a living, quickening faith. It is and is called a living faith because it apprehends Christ who is life and makes alive, and shows that it is alive by living works.”

Owen echoes this himself:

“For there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved …. Thus it is said of Simon the magician, that he ‘believed,’ Acts viii.13, when he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity” (Works, Justification, 5:79).

The nature of true faith consists in the “opening of the eyes of the sinner, to see the filth and guilt of sin in the sentence and curse of the law applied unto his conscience, Rom vii. 9, 10” (5:79). This results in the sinner being “sensible of his guilt before God” which is a condition that comes about by the act of sovereign grace. This sense of guilt does not merely consist in the assent (assensus) of the mind because believing is an “act of the heart” (5:81). But if it is “assentia alone”, then Owen rejects such a faith (5:83). This assenting faith is coupled with a “fiducial trust in the grace of God by Christ declared in the promises …” (5:84). While most Reformed theologians spoke of justifying faith involving three elements: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia), Owen seems to have placed knowledge and assent together.

Not surprisingly Owen identifies Christ as the object of justifying faith (5:86).  However, Owen argues that not only Christ but the Father also is the proper object.  He argues this because Christ is not the object of our faith absolutely but as “the ordinance of God, even the Father … who is also the immediate object of faith as justifying …. ‘He that believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life’ …” (Ibid). Relating to the covenant of redemption, we are to understand “God the Father as sending, and the Son as sent, – that is, Jesus Christ in the work of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners” as the object of faith (Ibid).  Owen includes, along with this, “the grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon of sin, which is the effect; and the promises of the gospel, which are the means, of communicating Christ and the benefits of his mediation unto us” (5:87).

The nature of justifying faith, then, consists in the “heart’s approbation of the way of justification and salvation of sinners by Jesus Christ proposed in the gospel, as proceeding from the grace, wisdom, and love of God …” (5:93). This includes a renunciation of attaining righteousness and salvation by any other means except through Christ (5:100). Because the nature of saving faith is not merely assensus for Owen, he makes an important distinction regarding obedience in relation to faith.

Wherefore we say, the faith whereby we are justified, is such as is not found in any but those who are made-partakers of the Holy Ghost, and by him united unto Christ, whose nature is renewed, and in whom there is a principle of all grace, and purpose of obedience. Only we say, it is not any other grace, as charity and the like, nor any obedience, that gives life and form unto this faith; but it is this faith that gives life and efficacy unto all other graces, and form unto all evangelical obedience (5:104).

This brings up another important issue, of which Owen was aware of. According to Owen, some maintain, wrongly, that whatever is a necessary condition of the new covenant is, therefore, also a necessary condition of justification (5:105). However, Owen answers that perseverance to the end, for example, is a condition of the covenant of grace. As a result, if perseverance, because it is a condition of the covenant, is a condition of justification, then no man can be justified while he is in this world. “For”, says Owen, “a condition doth suspend that whereof it is a condition from existence until it be accomplished” (Ibid).

Owen, then, does not equate the new covenant with justification. He does not equate salvation with justification, either.  Perseverance is also a blessing of the covenant of grace. That is, those who are effectually made partakers of the covenant of grace will surely persevere to the end (11:passim). However, justification in this present world, then, is not contingent upon final perseverance to the end.  The Westminster Confession states, similarly, concerning faith, that “Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (WLC, 73). Justification, then, as a blessing of the covenant of grace, is distinct from other graces such as sanctification and perseverance.

The use of faith in our justification is next considered by Owen. Here he affirms, as did the Reformers and Westminster divines, faith to be “the instrumental cause of our justification” (5:108). This is derived from Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:28 where he speaks of the righteousness of God that is through faith (dia pisteo). Owen adds, “It follows, therefore, that where … we are said to be justified … ‘by faith’, an instrumental efficiency is intended” (5:109). Owen, aware that some argue “faith is the condition of our justification,” allows that faith may also be called the condition of our justification so long as no more is intended than God requires faith from us so that we may be justified (emphasis ours) (5:113). He warns, however, regarding faith and obedience, that

“…if it be intended that they are such a condition of the covenant as to be by us performed antecedently unto the participation of any grace, mercy, or privilege of it, so as that they should be the consideration and procuring cause of them, – that they should be all of them, as some speak, the reward of our faith and obedience, – it is most false, and not only contrary to express testimonies of Scripture, but destructive of the nature of the covenant itself” (5:113-4).

Here Owen speaks of the nature of both the covenant and justification. The covenant is conditional insofar as it is understood that faith is required on our part to apprehend the blessings of the covenant. However, this faith, which is the gift of God, brings forth obedience so that the grace, mercies and privileges of the covenant are not dependent upon obedience but obedience flows from the grace, mercies and privileges of the covenant.

Owen also discusses the question of conditions in the covenant of grace.  As he argues for the superiority of the promises in the covenant of grace against any other covenant, he makes the following qualification:

“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).

We are only being good Reformed Protestants when we speak of conditions in the New Covenant and include in those conditions both faith and obedience.  Of course, the usual distinctions need to be made, but the language of conditionality should not cause us to bring out the crypto-Popish slurs.