By Principal WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM.
[Time and again we have received letters from England in which fault is found with the Scottish divines for preaching a limited or definite atonement while making a free offer of the gospel. Our greatest preachers, such as Rutherford, W. Guthrie, Boston, the Erskines, Dr. Macdonald, Dr. Kennedy, etc., have always accepted this view. But is doing so they were not Arminians, but thorough-going Calvinists of the Westminster Confession type. Dr. Cunningham deals with the point on which misunderstanding arose with some Calvinists and explains why the Scottish divines, while acknowledging man’s total depravity and utter spiritual helplessness, at the same time in their preaching gave the free offer of the Gospel.]
THOUGH the advocates of a universal atonement are accustomed to boast much of the support which, they allege, their doctrine derives from the scriptural statements about God’s loving of the world, Christ’s dying for all; yet many of them are pretty well aware that they really have but little that is formidable to advance, except the alleged inconsistency of the doctrine of a limited atonement with the unlimited or indiscriminate offers of pardon and acceptance,—the unlimited or indiscriminate invitations and commands to come to Christ, and to lay hold on Him,—which God addresses to men in His Word, and which He has authorised and required us to address to our fellow-men. The distinction between the ground and warrant of men’s act and of God’s act in this matter, not only suggests materials for answering the arguments of opponents, but it also tends to remove a certain measure of confusion, or misconception, sometimes exhibited upon this point by the defenders of the truth. Some of them are accustomed to say that the ground or warrant for the universal or unlimited offers of pardon, and commands to believe, is the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, which they generally hold, though denying its universal intended destination or efficiency; while others profess to rest the universal offers and commands upon the simple authority of God in His work, making them Himself, and requiring us to proclaim them to others.
Now, it is evident that these two things are not, as the language of some orthodox divines might lead us to suppose, contrasted with, or opposed to, each other. The sole ground or warrant for men’s act, in offering pardon and salvation to their fellow-men, is the authority and command of God in His Word. We have no other warrant than this; we need no other; and we should seek or desire none; but on this ground alone should consider ourselves not only warranted, but bound, to proclaim to our fellow-men, whatever be their country, character, or condition, the good news of the kingdom, and to call upon them to come to Christ that they may be saved—the Bible affording us sufficient, yea, abundant materials for convincing them that, in right reason, they ought to do this, and for assuring them that all who do, shall obtain eternal life. But this has manifestly nothing to do with the question as to the ground or warrant of God’s act in making unlimited offers, and in authorising us to make them.
In regard to the allegation often made by orthodox divines, that this act of God is warranted by, and is based upon, the infinite intrinsic sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, we would only remark—for we cannot enter into discussion—that we are not aware of any Scripture evidence that these two things—namely, the universal intrinsic sufficiency and the unlimited offers—are connected in this way,—that we have never been able to see how the assertion of this connection removed or solved the difficulty, or threw any additional light upon this subject,—and that therefore we think it best while unhesitatingly doing ourselves, in our intercourse with our fellow-men, all that God’s Word authorises and requires to be contented with believing the general position,—that God in this, as in everything else, has chosen the best and wisest means of accomplishing all that He really intended to effect; and to be satisfied—so far as the objection of opponents is concerned—with showing that it cannot be proved that there is any inconsistency or insincerity, that there is any injustice or deception, on God’s part in anything which He says or does in this matter, even though the intended destination of the atonement was to effect and secure the forgiveness and salvation of the elect only,—even though He did not design or purpose, by sending His Son into the world, to save any but those who are saved.—Historical Theology, II. pp. 347, 348.