1a. What is it?
Rev A W MacColl
The Westminster Confession of Faith emphasises God the Father’s gift in the everlasting covenant, in that He “freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved” (7:3). This biblical doctrine is thus part of the fixed constitution of the Church of Christ in Scotland. Yet it has been the subject of much discussion over the years, not least in our own day. Evangelical Presbyterians in Scotland and further afield have vigorously contended for this doctrine, and it is one which is given much prominence in the type of presentation of divine truth which characterizes faithful gospel preaching among us. It is thus worthy of detailed study. In this series of articles we will, firstly, seek to outline the various positions taken over the question of the free offer of the gospel, secondly, state the biblical grounds upon which the orthodox position rests and then, finally, deal with some objections and controverted areas of the debate.
The free offer of the gospel might be defined as the assertion that God, in bringing the good news of salvation to sinners through the preaching of the Word, invites all who hear that Word to accept the gift of salvation without reservation.2 It is an “offer” because Christ and all the benefits of His redemption are set before sinners who are without Him, and they are called upon to appropriate Him and His benefits for themselves.
It is “free” because there is nothing that any sinner can contribute to induce God to make such an offer, nor is there any qualification that the sinner can bring, to make himself acceptable to God, for the gospel excludes works. God’s gratuitous offer and invitation is therefore the only way of access to Him, and the salvation He offers is salvation “without money and without price”. Thomas Boston taught that the faith which unites with Christ comprises, firstly, faith in Christ’s sufficiency; secondly, faith in the gospel offer; thirdly, faith in our right to Christ; and, finally, the faith of particular trust for salvation. The faith of the gospel offer he held to be “that Jesus Christ, with His righteousness and all His salvation, is by Himself offered to sinners and to you in particular”.3
1The first part of a paper delivered at the 2015 Theological Conference.
2Some have given a wider definition and stated that the offer is to all of mankind. Practically there is no real difference since, although salvation is only offered to those who actually hear the Word, yet all are welcome to hear it preached and are thus not excluded.
3The Beauties of Boston, ed Samuel Macmillan, Christian Focus, 1979 reprint, p 594.
Historically, the controversy over the offer of salvation has been concentrated within Calvinistic Churches. Romanists and High Anglicans, with their sacramentarian system, lay little emphasis on the sinner’s response to the preached Word as a means of receiving the benefits of redemption. Arminians have no special difficulty with a universal offer of salvation to all men since they also maintain a universal atonement on behalf of all men. The difficulty that Arminians run into – if they examine their own position thoroughly enough – is with the freeness of the offer. If man’s salvation ultimately depends on a human decision to accept a general provision made for all, then the freeness of that salvation begins to come into question, for what is the ground of one’s salvation in such a case: is it divine grace or human free will?
We may initially summarise four main positions on the free offer. Firstly, there is the view that no offer is to be made to unconverted sinners and that the promises of grace and salvation are strictly limited to those exhibiting the marks of grace and election. Secondly, there is the opposite view, that of Arminianism and Amyraldianism,4 which grounds a universal offer of salvation in a universal atonement. Thirdly, there is the position of the Westminster Standards, which asserts a free offer of Christ in the administration of the gospel, yet does not found such an offer on a universal atonement. Fourthly, there are some who seek to narrow down or qualify the extent of the offer to a lesser or greater extent.
Whatever position is adopted, the great issue which Calvinists have to contend with is: whether it is possible to reconcile the Bible’s teachings on divine sovereignty, in salvation, with the promises and invitations of the gospel to sinners. This is, as William Cunningham notes in his Historical Theology, a difficulty with which all systems of theology have to contend at some point; it “just resolve[s] into the one grand difficulty of all religion and of every system of theology – that, namely, of reconciling, or rather of developing, the consistency between the supremacy and sovereignty of God, and the free agency and responsibility of man”.5 From this question all the other areas of controversy take rise.
Furthermore, the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity, which teaches the inability of mankind in spiritual matters, may seem to raise its own difficulties. There is the issue of how a spiritually-dead sinner, who is unable to respond to the gospel, can be addressed by God in terms which emphasise the sinner’s
4Amyraldianism is an erroneous view that borrows some aspects of Arminianism and some aspects of Calvinism. It holds that Christ’s atonement was fully intended to save all men on condition of faith, but that another decree to make it effectual was needed for the elect.
5Cunningham, Historical Theology, Banner of Truth reprint, 1994, vol 2, p 346.
responsibility to accept the offer – and how that sinner can be responsible for his refusal and inability to accept it. Must we limit the offers and invitations of the Word to those who were elected from all eternity in the predestinating purpose of God? In practical terms, does this force us to look for marks of election and effectual calling before we call men to come to Christ?
As Cunningham comments, the notion that there is no offer of salvation to sinners as such is one which has generally held very little appeal to theologians and preachers of the Reformed Churches: “Very few Calvinists have ever disputed the propriety and the obligation of addressing to men, indiscriminately, without distinction or exception, the offers and invitations of gospel mercy”.6 The outright denial of the free offer to all men was mainly adopted by some of the more exclusive eighteenth-century English dissenters and has continued to this day in the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists and in certain of the Dutch Reformed Churches.
How then do the advocates of this teaching understand the example of Christ and of the Prophets and Apostles, who called the backslidden Jews to repent and believe the gospel – in other words, who made indiscriminate appeals to them to believe in the gospel, such as, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28)? They assume that these calls belong to the special privileges of a unique, covenanted nation. One very obvious question to ask here is: If only Jews were to be exhorted to repent and believe the good news of the gospel, how were the Gentiles ever to be gathered in? For if there is no warrant for sinners as sinners to accept of salvation (whether Jew or Gentile), it would be presumption for even the elect to lay hold of salvation. Indeed, Paul informed Agrippa that he made no distinction between Jew and Gentile when calling all men to the duty of repentance (Acts 26:20).