Is the Gospel a Conditional Promise?
The
concept of a conditional promise of salvation figures large in the thinking of
the RPC of Ireland. It is stated in the RWC’s article (Point 2) and reiterated
in the response (Point 1). I explained in my protest how their thinking on this
matter is erroneous. There are only two possible ways of understanding the
concept of faith as a condition in
salvation. There is the limited sense in which the Westminster divines used the
word; in this view “condition” is equivalent to “means to an end” or
“requirement.”7 There is also the absolute sense of the term that is
the view of the RPC; in this view “condition” means something on which the
result of a purpose or plan is really suspended. The position of the RWC is
that God sincerely promises salvation to all head for head who hear the gospel;
this “overture of mercy” is grace to all who hear since it confers on them the
right to believe the promise is for them; and the condition on which salvation
depends is faith. It ought to be clear to anyone that faith as a divinely
appointed means or instrument of salvation is incompatible with faith as a
cause that leads to salvation. Since the RWC in their response rejected my
careful and precise definition of condition as means, the only other option is condition as a cause that leads to salvation; that the latter is their position is
evinced by the weight they lay on “the initial exercise of saving faith.”
With
reference to Point 1(b) of the response, if, as the RWC avers, there is no
uncertainty in the mind of God respecting the outcome of the promise, it
follows that the promise of the gospel is only to those for whom God intended
it, that is, those who repent and believe. If there is no uncertainty respecting
the outcome of the promise, then it cannot be made to those who never actually
repent and believe, for if God promises salvation to all men and many of them
never repent and believe, then the promise is not realized with them; and if
the promise does not take effect in many to whom it is sincerely made, then
there is uncertainty in God’s mind and purpose. Hence, to speak of a conditional
promise that is certain is a contradiction.
Contrary
to the RWC in Point 1(d), it is not I who “simply insists the promise is for
the elect.” That the promise of the gospel is for the elect is explicitly
stated in the confession: “[God] freely offereth unto sinners life and
salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;
and promising to give unto all those that
are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe” (7:3). Furthermore, and contrary
to the RWC, I do not “ignore the fact stated in the original article that the
confession teaches that saving faith ‘entails embracing the promises of God’
(14:2).” But I do notice in chapter 14:2 that the activity of “embracing the
promises of God for this life and that to come” is for a Christian: “By this
faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word …
and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth
… and embracing the promises of God …” Furthermore, this chapter strictly
limits the activity of saving faith (which includes embracing the promises of
God) to the elect: “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to
believe to the saving of their souls …” (14:1). I suggest to the RWC
that it is they who ignore what the confession so clearly teaches in this
chapter.
There
is something else stated in the article and reiterated in the response that is
very problematic. The RWC wrongly assumes that in order properly to preach the
gospel, it is necessary that it be preached as a general promise to all men. In
Point 2 of the article, they take issue with the truth that the promise is
particular when they say, “This means that there are no promises to any
non-Christian, since no one can know they are one of the elect prior to their
conversion. This, in turn, means that saving faith in its initial exercise can
no longer be defined as entailing embracing the promises of God.” In Point 1(d)
of the response they return to this position when they ask the question, “Since
no one can know his election till after conversion (II Peter 1:10), then how do
the elect embrace promises that they cannot know are addressed to them?” Their
reasoning is that only if the promise of the gospel is made to all men can
anyone believe it is for him personally. This amounts to saying that a sinner
must know and believe that God’s promise is to him before he can rightfully be
called to faith. But the confession, in line with Scripture, teaches that
receiving the promise of God personally is only for those who possess saving
faith—for Christians (14:2). The RWC ends up with the absurd position that I
must believe the promise is to me before I believe.
Contrary
to the Amyraldian scheme of a conditional promise espoused by the RWC, the
Bible makes clear that God’s promise of salvation is to those who repent and
believe: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house” (Acts 16:31); “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt
be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Following the example of Peter on Pentecost, we promise
salvation to the penitent: “Now when
they heard this, they were pricked in their heart … Then Peter said unto them, Repent,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is
unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:37-39). The promise is to those who repent and believe, and we
have no right to promise salvation to any but them. The call of the gospel is
general; the promise of the gospel is particular—to those, and those only, who repent
and believe.
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
7. See J. G. Vos’s explanation of “condition” as
used by the Westminster divines as quoted in page 2 of my protest.
No comments:
Post a Comment