Whether conditional promises are contained in the Gospel.
Whether conditional promises are contained in the Gospel.
§ 22. Thus we proceed to the third thing which Bellarmine tries to prove is contained in the Gospel, namely, conditional promises. He says:
Let us come to the third difference which is especially proper to this locus. That evangelical promises are conditional and not absolute we prove thus, first, from Matt. 5[:20]: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Surely this is a promise of the Gospel because it looks for the kingdom of heaven; and yet it requires a condition of righteousness which is not imputed but actual and operating and which consists of the perfect keeping of the Commandments, as the point of contrast also teaches in the same place.
We respond. Bellarmine’s argument comes from a false hypothesis, namely, that wherever eternal life is promised, there an evangelical promise is being set forth. [It is false] because the Law also promises eternal life, but with the condition added about perfect fulfillment. “I have set before you life and death” (Deut. 30:15). “Do this, and you will live” (Luke 10:28). “Doing them, a man will live in them” (Gal. 3:[12]). Surely it is clear that the saying in Matt. 5[:20] is being contrasted to the righteousness of the Pharisees, which was not overflowing, sufficient, and perfect. Therefore Christ requires a more abundant and more perfect righteousness which is the righteousness of faith, which Bellarmine here calls “imputed” but which he elsewhere calls “putative” by way of insult. The Pharisees were “followers of the Law of righteousness and did not submit themselves to the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 10:3). They saw that there was a need for the fulfillment of the Law for righteousness and eternal life, but they noticed that it was impossible to fulfill every tiny detail in the Law as regards the inner emotions in the mind, will, and heart; as regards some faults in one’s gestures, in a little word, with all one’s heart and all one’s strength, in perfect conformity. Thus they invented a distinction: that some commandments of the Law are important, and some are very insignificant; and that though a person may not perfectly satisfy the commandments referring to the inner emotions or affections of the heart, if he merely keeps, as he is able, the important commandments about external works, he could be righteous before God and could earn the kingdom of God with such righteousness. This was the teaching of the Pharisees, as is quite obvious from that speech [of Christ]. But Christ sets His own response against this quite severely and declares that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven through the imperfect righteousness which fulfills in one way or another only some small portion of the Law having to do with external works. Thus from His people He requires a more perfect and abundant—that is, the most perfect, most full, most complete—fulfillment of the Law. Because they do not find this in themselves, they should seek it by faith and apprehend it through Christ “who is the end of the Law for the righteousness of all who believe” (Rom. 10:4).
From this righteousness of faith a righteousness of works springs forth in the regenerate which is also in many ways more perfect in the reborn than the external righteousness of the Pharisees: because it proceeds from a renewed spirit and is connected with an inner obedience of the heart; because it is spontaneous, voluntary, and not mercenary; because it has regard for the entire Law, not just for some small part of it; because it proceeds from a sincere heart, not a hypocritical one, and from a genuine love for God; and because it seeks only God’s glory and not its own convenience or honor. Therefore the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works in the reborn is more perfect and more abundant than pharisaical righteousness. Nevertheless since the reborn “serve the law of sin with their flesh” while they “serve the Law of God with their mind” (Rom. 7:25), and because imperfections and stains cling even to the works of the regenerate, they cannot enter the kingdom of God through and because of their works since those works are imperfect and unclean. And thus in the question as to how they may be able to enter the kingdom of heaven, they flee for refuge not to the pharisaical righteousness of the flesh, not to their own imperfect spiritual obedience, but in faith to the completely perfect righteousness of Christ.
The foregoing comes from the very learned Chemnitz (Harm. evangel., ch. 51, p. 337). From them it is quite obvious that Christ’s statement not only gives Bellarmine no support but also very strongly opposes him, for he also argues that some sins are venial by their own nature, that some sins can be committed beyond rather than against the Law, that inner concupiscence is not a sin, that the commandment to love shows only the end toward which we should struggle but does not obligate us to its perfect fulfillment, that the works of the reborn are perfect and merit eternal life, etc., just as the Pharisees formerly kept perverting the genuine doctrine of the Law with their distinction between the greatest and the least commandments. Certainly Christ requires a more perfect righteousness from His own people than the righteousness of the Pharisees, that they may be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. But this is the righteousness of faith, as will be demonstrated later in its own place [§ 65]. In fact, He also requires a more perfect righteousness of works from the reborn than was the righteousness of the Pharisees, yet it does not follow from this that they can enter the kingdom of heaven through and because of it.