proper-use-of-term-condition

 

<THE PROPER USE OF THE TERM, “CONDITION”>

 

(Rev. Cornelius Hanko)

When we speak of the proper use of the term “condition” we cannot appeal to the use of the term in Scripture, since it never appears there. In that sense it is not a scriptural term. That does not yet imply that it is contrary to the Scriptures, for there are numerous accepted terms among us, such as “attribute”, “sacrament” and “providence”, which are not found in the Bible, but do express the truth of Scripture. When we use such terms, we always make sure that the church of the past has given, and that we give a scriptural connotation to them, so that there can be no misunderstanding. But we cannot appeal to the scriptures to find out how scripture uses the term.

 

Nor can we appeal to the confessions for the proper use of the term “condition.” Not as if it does not appear there, for we find it used repeatedly in the Canons of Dordrecht. But whenever the Canons use the term, they always, without exception, refer to it as employed by the Arminian. They only point out its improper use.

 

But that can be of aid to us in our present discussion. Let us notice, first of all, the First Head of Doctrine, article 9, “This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the *pre-requisite, cause or condition* on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc., therefore election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: ‘He hath chosen us (not because we were) but that we should be holy, and without blame, before Him in love.’ Eph. 1:4.”

 

This article teaches that:

 

1. The term “condition” is synonymous with the term “cause,” and therefore implies a pre-requisite. A condition, as the confession speaks of it, is something that is required beforehand, so that something else is contingent or dependent upon it.

 

2. Faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or any other disposition of man, are not the pre-requisite cause or condition of election and salvation. This is said in refutation of the Arminian.

 

3. On the contrary, election is the fountain of every saving good. Therefore election is also the fountain, or source of faith. But then faith is no more a condition.

 

4. Faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or the like, are *fruits* that proceed from election, rather than conditions unto election. Since they are fruits, they cannot be conditions.

 

You will find a very similar language under this same Head of Doctrine, in the section of rejection of errors, articles IV, V, and VII, which we shall not quote here for want of space. If you are interested, see also Head of Doctrine V, Rejection of Errors I.

 

The next article we refer to is found in the First Head of Doctrine, article 10, which declares, “The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which doth not consist herein, that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a *condition* of salvation ; but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself, as it is written,” etc.

 

1. Here the fathers refute the idea that it was the good pleasure of God to choose certain gifts and actions of men as conditions of salvation. God did not choose “gifts and actions of men,” but He chose “persons as a peculiar people to Himself.”

 

2. The term “condition” is employed here to refer to certain pre-requisites which God has set up from eternity, to which man must conform in order to be included in God’s election, and thus to be saved.

 

3. See in this connection also, Head of Doctrine II, Rejection of Errors, III.

 

Those among us who felt a strong need for the use of the term “condition,” and defended a conditional promise and a conditional gospel, raised the argument that the Canons speak of “Arminian conditions,” while they wanted to maintain “Reformed conditions.” Arminian conditions, so it was said, are conditions unto election, but “Reformed conditions’’ are conditions unto salvation. Although they would maintain, on the one hand, that God’s election is sovereign and unconditional, yet, on the other hand, there are also conditions unto our salvation. Although it is true, that conversion, faith, obedience and perseverance are gifts of grace, they are also, particularly before our consciousness, conditions that we must fulfill to be saved.

 

But our confessions do not know that language.

 

1. The Canons speak of “conditions” as synonymous with “cause” and “contingency.”

 

2. They know of but one cause of our salvation, namely, election. That is the fountain out of which the stream of grace flows. And God determines sovereignly and unconditionally upon whom it shall flow, when it shall flow upon them, and how much they shall receive at any given time.

 

3. Moreover, they never speak of salvation as something that is only finally attained in heaven. But they include conversion, faith, obedience and sanctification, with all the other gifts of grace as a part of our salvation. God is even now the sole Cause, who supplies the necessary means, and who produces the fruits of faith, etc., in the hearts of the believer. It is in this confidence that the believer can be fully assured of his ultimate victory and eternal perfection. Instead of using the term “condition,” the Canons speak of “Fountain,” “cause,” “gifts,” “means,” and “fruits.”

 

That is Scripture, according to the confessions.

 

Those who contend that the term “condition,” in a “Reformed” sense, is necessary in order to have a full-orbed gospel, will appeal to the fact, that although the Scriptures do not use the term as such, they do express the conditional thought by the numerous “if clauses.” And therefore, to express this idea of the “if clauses” the term “condition” is proper and essential to Reformed theology.

 

But let us view these “if clauses” for a moment in the light of the confessions quoted above.

 

We notice, first of all, that many, in fact, most of the “if clauses” in Scripture have the significance of “since.” There is no contingency expressed in them at all, but appeal is made to an established fact. I refer to but two examples:

 

Galatians 5:25: “If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”

 

Colossians 3:1: “If we then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.”

 

Notice in this connection the beautiful thought of James 4:8: “Draw nigh to God, and (since, in that way) He will draw nigh to you.”

 

Reference is made to numerous passages in the Old Testament in which God’s blessing is assured to Israel “if” they will keep His commandments, but His curse awaits them “if” they fail to do so. Here, so it is said, we meet with a true conditionality, a contingency depending upon man’s response to God’s law. If . . . this; if not . . . that.

 

To quote one example, we refer to Deuteronomy 28:1, 2, 15: “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth; and all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou wilt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.”

 

But, as is plain from many other passages of Deuteronomy, this is nothing less than a *prediction*, which history has borne out. Spiritual Israel, by the grace of God, did hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord their God, to observe and do all His commandments which He commanded them, and they are set on high above all the nations of the earth eternally. While, on the other hand, carnal Israel did not observe to do all His commandments and His statutes, so that all His curses did come upon them, and overtake them eternally. This served as a sound pedagogy for spiritual Israel, for in as far as they were unfaithful the Lord caused them to suffer His chastisement to bring them to repentance. But the word of the Lord was confirmed among them: **Those who** hearken to His voice experience His blessing, but **those who** do not hearken experience His curse. 

 

It is likewise evident that the passage in Psalm 132:12 cannot be interpreted as a condition which is dependent upon man for its fulfillment, but must be interpreted in connection with Psalm 89:20, 28-35. Also here the sound rule applies, that Scripture must be compared with and interpreted in the light of Scripture.

 

Psalm 132:12 reads: “If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.”

 

While Psalm 89:20, 28-35 teaches us: “I have found David (Christ) my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him … My mercy will I keep for him forevermore and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.”

 

But an appeal is also made to the fact that the Reformed fathers of the period in which the confessions were composed did use the term “condition” in their writings, even when they were aware of the Arminian implications of the term. This we readily grant. (But it must also be granted that they employed the term loosely, almost, we might say, thoughtlessly, without attaching any doctrinal implications to it. In that sense many of the early Reformed fathers spoke of “common grace,” (which was also found on the lips of the Arminians and condemned in the Canons), and “offer of salvation,” without any intention of attaching any special significance to the terms. But as soon as any doctrinal implications are drawn from the use of a term, or any special significance is attached to it, the church may well review the “accepted use and the significance of the term in history.”

That still leaves the question whether the term “condition” does not express better and more concisely certain relationships in the “Order of Salvation” than any other term could possibly express them. It is obvious that certain gifts of grace precede others, that one follows out of the other, and that our final salvation is only possible as a result of all these gifts of grace bestowed upon us during this present time.

 

For example, regeneration is necessarily first, for, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Regeneration is like the acorn, for essentially all other gifts are included in this one gift.

 

Likewise, conversion must precede the enjoyment of conscious faith.

 

Faith is the divine means unto our justification.

 

Only in the way of sanctification do we experience God’s approval.

 

Only those who receive the grace to persevere unto the end will receive the crown of life.

 

Even in regard to affairs of our present earthly existence we learn to say: “If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:15).

 

If we were to speak of “conditions” at all, it would necessarily be in that sense, placing the conditionality or contingency **solely in God**. God is the absolute Sovereign, and we are utterly dependent upon Him, even in every conceivable way. Every cause, condition, prerequisite or contingency rest entirely in Him. He must grant regeneration, conversion, faith, justification, sanctification, preservation, joy, peace, blessedness, and every other gift. And through all those gifts He must bestow upon us our final glorification.

 

But again it must be granted, that to express all this the Canons felt no need to employ the term “condition.” Nor can it be said that the term “condition” expresses this truth better and more comprehensively than such terms as the Canons employs, namely, cause, gifts, means, or fruits. We certainly lose nothing in the preaching by avoiding it. To say that God is the sole cause, and election is the fountain of our salvation, is a truth of inestimable comfort to the believer. To say that God’s gifts are His sovereign means to our final perfection is our constant peace. To say that He who works the fruits of grace in us will also finish all that He has begun, does not make anyone careless and profane, but affords perfect assurance for the believer.

 

And since the Arminian so sorely needs, and so freely uses the term to bolster and propagate his error also in our day, we are safe and avoid all misunderstanding by simply refusing to use it in connection with all that pertains to our salvation.

 

C.H.

 

 

(Source: “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 32, no. 19 [August 1, 1956], pp. 452-453, 456)