The Free Offer and Sovereign Election
It is within the context of the universal offer—and refusal—of salvation (
Ps. 14:1–3;
John 6:27–36) that we learn of sovereign election (
John 6:37–40). It is the world’s unanimous refusal of the offer than makes election necessary. Indeed, it is the free proclamation of the that God uses to save those whom he has chosen (
1 Cor. 1:18–31; 3:6;
2 Cor. 2:14–16; cf.
Matt. 11:25–30;
Acts 13:48). As J.I. Packer summarizes,
Calvin, with Luther, and Paul in Romans, and Jesus in John, made the universal gospel invitation the frame and context within which we are introduced to election as the divine decisions which explain why believers have believed and why their security is guaranteed. Reformed theology after Beza made God’s decree of election, reprobation and providential events the frame and context within which we are introduced to the gospel as a statement (for which see Westminster Confession 3 and 10): this creates problems by making the indiscriminate gospel invitation seem a sham to all except for the elect. The former statement, which sees God’s love as going a second mile in order to save (not only does he provide a Saviour and a salvation, but he also draws folks who would not otherwise respond to receive his gifts), is far preferable; the latter far commoner (Systematic Theology Overview, unpublished notes, p.107).
The Free Offer and Particular Redemption
Luke 24:47 explicitly links the universal offer of the gospel of forgiveness to the finished saving work of Christ. In context,
Matthew 28:18–20 makes the same link: Christ’s universal authority to save is grounded in his finished work. That is to say, Christ’s atoning work is the ground of universal mission. What is offered in the gospel, precisely, is Jesus Christ in whom all the saving benefits of the gospel have been procured. Salvation is offered
in Christ. John Murray makes the point here that the only doctrine of atonement that will ground such an offer is that of a definite, fully successful atonement – an atonement that provides not merely the possibility of salvation but actual, accomplished salvation (
Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol.1: Studies in Theology, 59–85):
It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction…. The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus (John Murray, “
Arminianism and the Atonement”).
The Free Offer and Human Inability
The lost are free to do whatever they want to do, but therein lies the problem: the “want to” of sinners is sinful and therefore disinclined from God. The “inability” of the lost to respond to the gospel lies in their own will – they do not come to Christ
simply because they won’t. And because they “refuse to come to me” they are held responsible (
John 5:40). Simply put, depravity and inability does not preclude responsibility. The universal responsibility to believe and be saved remains.
Moreover, as Warfield insightfully observes (
Selected Shorter Writings, p.725–728), no sinner can know that he or she is unable except by trying to come. And the doctrine of total inability is not, “You cannot come”; it is, rather, “You cannot come apart from divine aid.” This is how Jesus himself defined the matter:
And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God” (
Mark 10:26–27).
The responsibility remains: a person concerned for his or her soul is not told to “wait” but to “come.” And all who do come, he receives (
John 6:37). A recognition of helplessness is no excuse for continued unbelief, nor is it a barrier to the universal offer of salvation.
Command vs. Offer
The distinction between God’s
command to believe and his
offer of salvation must not be overdrawn. To be sure, God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (
Acts 17:30), but this commanded repentance is a “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (
Luke 24:47). The command to repent and believe is itself an offer of grace.
The Free Offer and Divine Majesty
We may agree with those who argue that there is no necessity for the God of infinite majesty to make overtures of grace to those who will only continue to rebel. Indeed, we might as well say that it would be beneath God to offer salvation
to anyone, irrespective of their eventual response. But the fact is,
he does, and he tells us so repeatedly. He commands, he implores, he pleads, he stands longingly with outstretched arms—all this is the biblical language. More to the point, we must recognize that this compassionate stance is part of God’s self-revelation to be understood as one aspect of his glory. We do not adore God rightly until we recognize his great heart of love. And we do not proclaim the gospel rightly until we reflect this stance ourselves.
Conclusion
The indiscriminate call and free offer of the gospel has strong and explicit Biblical warrant, and the traditional Reformed position has rightly maintained it. The concern of some high Calvinists that a free offer of the gospel implies Arminian notions is simply mistaken. God positions himself toward the wicked as willing to save, and he pleads with them accordingly through his spokesmen. This universal appeal of the gospel is the external means by which God, in his own time, sovereignly calls his elect individually into the fellowship of Christ. If in the gospel God is freely offering Christ to the world, the Christians must make the same offer. If it is the duty of all to believe, then it is the duty of Christians to offer Christ. We can say to anyone, anywhere—and we must not hesitate—“If you will come to Jesus Christ, he will save you.”