Definite atonement and the universal call of the gospel

It is often claimed that the universal well-meant offer of the gospel is incompatible with a definite atonement.  Since the “call of the gospel” is biblically presented as (1) a sincere offer on the part of God and (2) to be universally and indiscriminately presented to all who can be reached, many argue that this inherently contradicts the Calvinist concept of a limited or definite atonement. 

Roger Nicole notes that detractors of a definite atonement (along this line of thinking) include “a great company of thinkers from varying backgrounds, some Eastern Orthodox, some Roman Catholics, many Lutherans, many Arminians and some hypothetical Universalists [Amyraldians] in the Reformed churches. With one voice these people say that since God’s gospel call is universal, provision made by Christ must be universal as well. It is therefore incumbent upon those who hold to the doctrine of definite atonement to consider this matter with care.”

The following is extracted from the discussion by Roger Nicole in Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement, JETS 38/3 (September 1995) 403-412, also reprinted as a chapter in the recent Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole, (2002).
———————-

Perhaps the best way of considering this issue may be to attempt to assess the precise ingredients that are indispensable for a well-meant offer.  The purpose that we pursue here therefore is to consider the subject of offers in general and specifically to examine whether certain features that some deem indispensable for sincerity in the offer of the gospel are in fact indispensable in offers of any kind. This plan of investigation surely appears legitimate, for it is not enough to appeal to some sentiment or presumption in raising the argument. But those who wish to point to a disparity between the universality of the offer and the definiteness of the atonement should be prepared to show that on these terms something is lacking that must be rated an indispensable component of any well-meant offer. It is our purpose to proceed therefore by analyzing offers at the human level.

It must be noted even before we start that the analogies we shall draw have very real limitations. Indeed they are drawn not for the purpose of representing the fullness of the gospel ministry but merely in order to focus on that which is basic for a sincere offer of any kind. It will not do therefore in criticizing this approach to say that the analogies are derived from a type of activity that ranks low on the scale of moral values, or that they are commercial in nature, or that God in his immensity transcends the limitations found among men. All of this may be true, but the point of the analogies is to emphasize that we cannot insist, when dealing with offers on God’s part, upon requirements that do not apply in the whole subject of offers in general, or at least we cannot so insist unless we are prepared to show why on God’s part these additional requirements should obtain. This is the point of the analogies that are now going to be presented.

Coextensive provision

People often say that in order to have a well-meant offer there must be a provision coextensive with the needs or the desires of the people reached by the offer. This is precisely what appears to be asserted in connection with the scope of the work of Christ when opponents of definite atonement say, “In order that God may offer salvation to everyone in fairness, it is necessary that Christ should have absorbed the guilt of everyone and thus by his redemptive work secured salvation or at least salvability for everyone.”

Let us imagine an offer appearing in The Boston Sunday Herald Advertiser, issued by Sears, Roebuck and Company, illustrated and highlighted with large print. In it Sears offers a two-cycle Kenmore automatic washer at a cost of $157. Now The Boston Sunday Herald Advertiser is issued with a circulation of some 300,000 copies. Shall I conclude that Sears has gathered within its Boston area 300,000 washing machines of this type in order to make provision for the offers that it has issued, or shall I judge that it is guilty of unethical practice if it has failed to stock this number in its Boston warehouse? Undoubtedly not! Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that companies do not accumulate as many objects as they distribute advertisements.  This is perfectly obvious in the case of Sears, Roebuck and Company because on that same page they may offer also some electric dryers, some refrigerators and some color television sets, and to imagine that they store 300,000 of each of these appears utterly ludicrous. We would assume of course that they have a considerable quantity of these since they go to the trouble of advertising them. How many of these they might stock is a matter of internal administration of the company, which is really not subject to the inquiry of the customers.  Now of course if these are “come-ons”– that is, sample objects of which they have a very few specimens available and that they use to attract people into their stores, not meaning to sell them at the price stated but intending to use them simply as a lure — then a charge of sharp practice could probably be leveled at the company. But in the present situation there is no evidence whatever that this is the case.  All that the customer really has the right to expect is that if he/she appears at any of the stores listed within the time stated and with the appropriate amount of cash he/she will be sold the object advertised at the price stipulated.  No co-extensiveness of provision applies here at all, and it is difficult to see why one should be prone to insist on co-extensiveness in relation to the offer of salvation.

Coextensive expectation

Even though the above point may be conceded, and coextensive provision need not be requisite for a well-meant offer, some opponents urge, an offer cannot be held to be sincere unless there is some expectation that it may be favorably answered. This expectation cannot be present if God has elected some of mankind and sent Christ to die for them only.

We need not spend much time on this objection, which, if at all valid, would be quite as damaging to the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Lutheran, and the evangelical Arminian as to the Calvinist, since all alike hold that God foreknows all things and would be unable to offer the gospel sincerely to those he knows will refuse.

Returning for a brief moment to the illustration given under the first point, we may indicate that the firm advertising the washing machine does not at all expect to receive several hundred thousand customers for it as a result of its ad. They probably will be quite satisfied if a hundred or more appear in response to it. If total expectation were necessary for a sincere offer, very few offers could be publicized. We conclude therefore without further discussion that a coextensive expectation is not an essential prerequisite for a sincere offer. . . .

And now we ask: “What is the essential prerequisite for a sincere offer?”  Simply this: that if the terms of the offer be observed, that which is offered be actually granted. In connection with the gospel offer the terms are that a person should repent and believe. Whenever that occurs, salvation is actually conferred.  There is not a single case on record in the whole history of mankind where a person came to God in repentance and faith and was refused salvation.  This our Lord specifically promised: “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37).  If the question be raised “Who is going to come?”, the answer is “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:44).  Far from undermining the sincere offer of the gospel, the doctrine of definite atonement under-girds the call.  It provides a real rather than a hypothetical salvation as that which is offered.  It does not expect the fulfillment of an unrealizable condition on the part of the sinner as a prerequisite for salvation.  But it confidently looks to God who initiates the offer and can also raise sinners from death to life and thus enable them in sovereign grace to repent and to believe so that they will appropriate the benefit secured for them by the death of Christ.

If it be asked in what terms the offer of the gospel must be presented and whether it is appropriate prior to any response on the part of sinners to say to them “God loves you with redemptive love” and “Jesus Christ died for your sins,” the answer to the query must be that these forms of language are not strictly legitimate unless there is some assurance that the people involved are in fact among the elect. It is better to say “God in his unfathomable mercy has been pleased to love sinners such as you and me, and he invites you to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.  If you do so, you will find that the work of Christ avails for you, and you will be saved.”

There is no need to fear that anyone responding to this call in terms of the invitation and exercising true repentance and faith will ever find that somehow God has made no provision for him/her and that salvation cannot be granted.  Thus in respect to the form of invitation those who hold to universal atonement do not even have a very substantial advantage, although it is true that they feel free to express themselves in ways the upholders of definite atonement must feel obliged to avoid.

It is a matter of plain record that mainline Calvinists who have made a clear-cut commitment to definite atonement have also maintained the propriety of the universal call of the gospel. This is not only the position of individual thinkers but has been embodied in some of the major creedal formulations. . . .

It would not be difficult to enumerate individual theologians who have given expression to the same conviction, but this appears superfluous at this point.

We sometimes hear that all evangelists and missionaries have held to a doctrine of universal atonement and that this is what has given them confidence to excel in their calling and to address to men and women a universal call of the gospel. But this is simply not true. Surely George Whitefield must be recognized as an evangelistic preacher of the first magnitude; and so was Jonathan Edwards, under whose ministry the great awakening originated; and so was Charles H. Spurgeon, who was probably unrivaled in his day for his evangelistic zeal and effectiveness. It would be easy to list missionaries like William Carey, John Paton, David Brainerd and many others who were devout Calvinists. The allegation, therefore, that a doctrine of definite atonement interferes with a proper development of zeal in evangelistic and missionary endeavors is simply not supported by the facts of history. Meanwhile, since there exists always a temptation, even for the Christian, to proffer excuses for his laziness, those who are Calvinists need to be careful not to allow themselves this pretense as a pillow of laziness. As indicated above, it is really the Calvinist who has in his theological approach the best basis for making a real offer, and on that account he should be most zealous in the proclamation of the gospel.
——————-

Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole, (2002) may be found here at Amazon.com.