3. The Atonement and the Gospel Offer
Rev A W MacColl
The question of the atonement and its relationship to the gospel offer must be addressed. The doctrine of limited, or definite, atonement is one of the principal distinctives of scriptural Calvinism and is taught unambiguously in the Westminster Confession of Faith. At the same time, it is sometimes alleged that a universal atonement is required to ground a universal offer of the gospel.
We can never be too certain about the definite nature of the atonement as designed to accomplish the salvation of all the elect seed that the Father gave to Christ in the everlasting covenant. It is clear that the addition of any element of imprecision or ambiguity as to the reference of the death of Christ can have baleful consequences, as was ultimately manifested by the Atonement Controversy in the United Presbyterian Church, descended from the Seceders of 1733. The atonement is based on the eternal decree of election and the particularity of the covenant of grace, and the desire to square the theological circle of how the atonement relates to the universal amnesty proposed indiscriminately to sinners, in the gospel, can clearly lead to erroneous teachings.
In answer therefore to the question as to where we ground the offer of the gospel, we would contend that it does not lie in the intrinsic sufficiency of the atonement as such. The offer is grounded in the authority and veracity of God’s Word given to His commissioned ambassadors. William Cunningham is very strong on this particular point.2 The suitability of that atonement, however, and the certain salvation it accomplishes for all who will believe form powerful motives for preachers to proclaim the good news concerning Christ. The infinite nature of the atonement itself is also a profound and real incentive for sinners to come to an all-sufficient Saviour.
1Last month’s section of this Theological Conference paper demonstrated the biblical grounds for the gospel offer. This article concludes the series.
2Cunningham, Historical Theology, Banner of Truth reprint, 1994, vol 2, pp 345-8.
It is clear from passages such as Matthew 5:43-48 that there is a universal benevolence in God to sinners of mankind. It is difficult to separate such benevolence from the indiscriminate administration of the gospel covenant among men; indeed the offer of mercy must surely represent the highest extent of divine goodness shown to those who are not among the elect. But that is not to say that the gospel offer rests on the foundation of God’s general love to all men. On the contrary, we are sure that the special love to the elect is God’s primary purpose in sending the gospel among men, for Christ said, “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me” (Jn 6:37).
Ultimately, we are led to the conclusion that Cunningham adopts: we must keep separate our warrant and God’s purpose for issuing the gospel offer. We are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature and that command – resting as it does on Divine authority and supported by the tenor of the gospel revelation in the Word – is a clear and sufficient ground for us to offer Christ’s salvation to sinners.3
What then is the sinner’s warrant to accept the offer and receive Christ for himself? K W Stebbins gives a useful list of warrants at the end of his book4 and a number of these are based on the “Warrants to Believe” contained in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, bound up with the Westminster Confession. Usually regarded as the work of James Durham and David Dickson, this short document indicates the teaching of the leading Scottish divines on the subject.
Four warrants are given: firstly, there is “God’s hearty invitation”, based on Isaiah 55:1-5. Secondly, they point to “the earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to Him in Christ”, based on 2 Corinthians 5:19-21. Thirdly, there is “the strait and awful command of God, charging all hearers of the gospel to approach to Christ in the order set down by Him, and to believe in Him,” as expressed in 1 John 3:23. Finally, there is “much assurance of life given, in case [that is, if] men shall obey the command of believing; and a fearful certification of destruction, in case they obey not”, taken from John 3:35,36.5 As we can see, these four warrants to embrace Christ in the gospel are grounded squarely on the Word itself, rather than on inferences concerning the atonement or the nature of the love of God.
3Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol 2, pp 344-8. For further discussion of these points see also John Murray, “The Free Offer of the Gospel”, in I H Murray ed, The Collected Works of John Murray, vol 4, Banner of Truth, 1982, pp 113-132; I H Murray, Spurgeon v Hyper-Calvinism, The Battle for Gospel Preaching, Banner of Truth, 1995, both of which tend to ground the offer to a lesser or greater degree in God’s general love. See K W Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered, Covenanter Press, 1996 edn, pp 37-38, 91-92, for a criticism of John Murray’s position.
4Stebbins, Christ Freely Offered, pp 100-101.
5“The Sum of Saving Knowledge” in The Westminster Confession of Faith, Free Presbyterian Publications reprint, 1997, pp 332-39.
One of the most helpful descriptions of the warrant to believe is found in John Colquhoun’s View of Saving Faith, where he defines the direct warrant to believe as consisting, firstly, in the offer of salvation in Christ held out as a gift by God the Father which confers a right to every hearer to trust in Christ for all the blessings of salvation. Colquhoun then mentions the invitations in the Word to accept Christ, the promise of God to those who will accept Christ and the command of God to repent and believe. These form a full warrant for every sinner who hears the gospel to believe in Christ.6
One of the most forceful of all the objections advanced against the doctrine of the free offer is the view that those passages of Scripture which are generally used to prove the doctrine do not actually apply to all men but must be limited in their application by various qualifications. There is no doubt that only the elect will truly be brought to a spiritual hunger and thirst for Christ through the work of the Spirit in them and that the free offer is made precious and effectual in their case only. But we cannot insist that a certain degree of conviction of sin is essential before a sinner is entitled to lay hold of Christ. The warrant for coming to Christ is that He is offered to us in the gospel as the Divine remedy for our sins. If it were otherwise, a subtle form of self-righteousness might easily develop which would lead the sinner to base his hope more on inward experiences than on the firm foundation of the promises of the Word.
Conclusion.
In preaching the gospel we must not limit the offers and invitations of the Word so that we exclude any. The gospel is to be preached to sinners as sinners without reference to their standing in relation to the eternal decree, which is something beyond our knowledge. We cannot expect to look for marks of grace and effectual calling before we call men to come to Christ, since dead and hardened sinners are not excluded from the call of the Word as we have proved. Neither is the degree of felt conviction of sin the ground upon which an entitlement to Christ can be founded. We are to press upon our hearers the solemn fact of their accountability to God for the manner in which they treat the sincere overtures of mercy that He sends them, through the preaching of the Word. Their inability will not excuse them, not least because of the fact that God has decreed the means whereby sinners may obtain the faith and repentance they cannot work for themselves.
We cordially endorse Cunningham’s sentiments on the manner in which the gospel is to be set before men: “God has commanded the gospel to be preached to every creature; He has required us to proclaim to our fellow men, of whatever character, and in all varieties of circumstances, the glad tidings of great joy – to hold out to them, in His name, pardon and acceptance through the blood of atonement – to invite them to come to Christ, and to receive Him, and to accompany all this with the assurance that whosoever cometh to Him, He ‘will in no wise cast out'”.7
6John Colquhoun, A View of Saving Faith, Free Presbyterian Publications reprint, 2010, pp 115-35.
7Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol 2, p 345.
Our desire is to preach Christ’s gospel freely to every creature, beseeching men in Christ’s stead that they be reconciled to God. The doctrines of Calvinism ensure that the salvation we offer is sure and certain to everyone that will believe on Christ. We are not called upon to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility other than stating that both are biblical and their presence together in God’s Word demonstrates that there is no contradiction in the revelation He has given us. We find the free offer in the Bible; therefore we preach it. At the same time, finding electing love also in the Bible, we know that all that the Father gives to Christ shall certainly come to Him, and that none who truly come shall be cast out. In short, the proper theological balance concerning the presentation and reception of the gospel has been found and has been handed down to us to maintain and pass on.