There has been an ongoing battle for some time now relative to what constitutes genuine Calvinism. Baptists and Protestants in their varied attempts to address this issue, have generally taken a historical, rather than Scriptural, path. Thus, instead of appealing to God's word to settle the matter, recourse is had to the writings of the reformers, puritans, and others of the Calvinistic stamp, in order to arrive at some sort of theological consensus. Yet for the true follower of Christ, such an approach is ultimately a wholly unacceptable one. While the theological writings of men have their place and use, absolutely nothing less than the all-authoritative and infallible word of God will ever satisfy the sheep of Christ regarding any question of truth, or, as in the present case, what constitutes genuine Calvinism.

But then, the very concept of genuine Calvinism has intrinsic problems of its own. To begin with, the word Calvinism itself represents a relative term. This is proven by the fact that such epithets as "moderate," "hyper," and "hypo" have come into existence. Of course, these modifiers are used by those who deem themselves to be regular, normal, and standard Calvinists. But such who are deemed moderates, hypers, or hypos, will view such a matter in an entirely different light. And thus the term is in many respects relative, which renders all the more difficult the precise determination of what constitutes genuine Calvinism. Further, the term Calvinism is generally restricted to certain doctrines. Mention this term to anyone with some familiarity with it, and generally the first thing which comes to mind are the "Five Points." Indeed, for all too many professing Christians (and this includes many Calvinists themselves), Calvinism incorporates nothing more than the "Five Points." Thus, with all its boasted pretensions to the "whole counsel of God," Calvinism is in large measure restricted to but five doctrines, viz.--total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. But are not doctrines such as ecclesiology and eschatology also part of God's whole counsel? The most certainly are; but how often are they addressed when dealing with the question of what constitutes genuine Calvinism? Generally, not at all. Hence, we see clearly two serious problems connected with the quest for genuine Calvinism, namely, that the term is both relative and restricted.

But to return to the historical versus Scriptural approach relative to what constitutes genuine Calvinism, a great many individuals that would be considered genuine Calvinists of the staunchest sort historically, would be considered quite otherwise if viewed from a strictly Scriptural standpoint. One doctrine in which this is made manifest is the atonement. It is commonplace to find in many Calvinistic works, whether specifically devoted to this subject or not, simultaneous contrarieties relative to the atonement. That is, one can find in the selfsame work both excellent statements regarding the atonement, as well as statements which both contradict and overthrow these excellent statements. It goes without saying that those guilty of such simultaneous contrarieties are either completely ignorant of the fact, or, are neither conscious nor convinced there is any contradiction though it may appear so to others. A classic example of this very problem is to be found in the hypothetical notion that Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all, elect and reprobate alike. Or, as more fully stated, this view posits that Christ died sufficiently for all (elect and reprobate alike), but efficiently only for the elect. This hypothetical concept represents to many the dividing line between genuine and "false" Calvinism, particularly as it relates to evangelistic practices. But more of this latter.

The hypothesis that Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently for the elect, is one which arose among the Catholic Schoolmen of the middle ages. It is a view that was later adopted by Protestants and Baptists alike. Indeed, it can be stated that the majority of such who claim to be Calvinistic with respect to the atonement ascribe to this hypothetical concept of Christ's death.(1) Included in this company are well-known names like John Calvin, John Owen, Andrew Fuller, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, A. W. Pink, and Louis Berkhof. In his famous comment on 1 John 2:2, Calvin wrote:

I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow the truth of this. I deny that it fits this passage.(2)

John Owen, in his famous work, The Death of Death in The Death of Christ, stated:

It was then the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose...Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world.(3)

And A. W. Pink, in a letter to I. C. Herendeen (dated November 22nd, 1919), wrote:

It is necessary to use the second term "sufficient" in order to fully enforce the sinner's responsibility. On the cross Christ did a work which has made it, abstractly or hypothetically possible for God to redeem whosoever He pleases. There a sacrifice was offered which was infinite in value, hence "sufficient" to redeem the entire race had God so pleased.(4)

Statements similar to these three quotes abound in the writings of Calvinists in regard to the atonement.
It will be noticed in the statements of Louis Berkhof and John Owen that the tiny phrase "in itself" is made use of. Relative to this point, William Cunningham states the following:

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect,--sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest,--admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement--whether originally so intended or not--was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ--viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design--was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement,--namely, that He died sufficiently for all,--seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.(5)

It is evident from Cunningham's words that, following the era of Calvin, Calvinists developed a sensitive reaction to the evident universalism implied in the sufficiency concept of Christ's death. They eventually resorted to the theological expedient of removing this concept from the realm of reality, intent, and design, to placing it in the vacuous state of hypothesis, a place in which they could view the matter "in itself" and "objectively, apart from God's purpose or design." The question of course arises, not only why this scholastic formula was adopted in the first place, but also why it was retained and subsequently contextually modified. Was it to placate Arminian opponents? Was it to soften the iron cold rigidity usually associated with the Calvinistic idea of predestination and election, particularly as related to the atonement? Or was there another reason? There were no doubt numerous reasons and motives underlying the adoption of the sufficiency concept of Christ's atonement, but there is one specific point which must be addressed over and above all others.

The sufficiency concept of Christ's death, as related to the reprobate, represented to Calvinists a key to unlock a particular practical problem. And the problem was this: how can one who believes in limited atonement practice evangelism? Two words uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ proved an insuperable stumbling block to many Calvinists, viz.--the "every creature" of Mark 16:15. Many Calvinists evidently could not practically reconcile the mandate to preach the gospel to every creature with a belief in limited atonement. While the latter doctrine was firmly held to be Scriptural, Calvinists were obviously under the exegetical impression that Christ had more in mind in the words "every creature" than just the elect. So what was to be done? Questioning the exegesis of Mark 16:15 does not appear to have been strongly entertained by many (if any at all). So the scholastic formula of "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" ultimately came in to save the Calvinist from his practical dilemma, bearing in mind, of course, the cautious manner in which the formula was adopted and appropriated by post-Reformation Calvinists.(6)

And thus, as an example, we have the following from John Owen:

Now, this fullness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation unto two things:--
First, The general publishing of the gospel unto "all nations," with the right that it hath to be preached to "every creature," Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; because the way of salvation is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils. if there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, there being enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him in faith; the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation.(7)

These words represent precisely the sentiment echoed by hosts of other Calvinists relative to the sufficiency concept of Christ's death.

Yet the concept that Christ's atoning work is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect, even in its cautiously presented form, inevitably suffers from two enormous and insurmountable problems. The first problem is that this sufficiency concept is plainly and simply unscriptural. There is absolutely no Scriptural ground for the notion that the sufficiency of Christ's death extends any further than its efficiency. The very proponents of the sufficiency concept plainly refer to it as being hypothetical in nature.(8) None who hold to this concept are able to demonstrate its validity by an exegesis of the Scriptures. Indeed, none will dare attempt to do so, for the simple reason that such a procedure must take into account God's purpose and design relative to the atonement. But this is precisely what sufficiency advocates seek to avoid, lest they be indicted with universalism or Arminianism. And thus, the very nature of the sufficiency concept proves to be its own condemnation.(9)

The scriptures do not present to the world the atoning work of Christ in hypothetical garb. Hypotheses, theories, and conjectures are matters utterly foreign to the work the Father gave His Son to do. God's word reveals that Christ's work, from start to finish, was of the positive, real, and concrete sort--deliberately planned and faithfully executed. Regarding its objects, Christ came "to save his people from their sins," "to seek and to save that which was lost," and "to save sinners." (Matt. 1:21; Lk. 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15) Now Christ either accomplished this or he did not. There is no room here for the Arminian heresy that Christ died for such that will never be saved. Indeed, Christ's death is salvation, so that for whom he died, they must be saved. But there is also no room here for the wicked notion that Christ died sufficiently for all,--whereby the reprobate have a hypothetical, provisional, and conditional atonement which will never actually save them,(10)--but efficiently, absolutely, and unconditionally for the elect. No such duality, failure, or hypotheticalness is manifest anywhere in God's word relative to Christ's atoning work.

The Scriptures declare unequivocally that what the Father sent his Son to accomplish, he did so without failure (Isa. 14:27; Isa. 53:10-12) When Jesus declared from the cross, "it is finished," (John 19:30) the atoning work was complete, to which nothing could be added or taken away. The very fact that Christ's saving work is denominated "good news" (Luke 2:10) represents divine testimony that there is an inviolable connection between the plan, execution, and objects of this salvation. Any breach in this chain would render the good news of Jesus anything but good. Further, it is evident that Christ's atonement not only formed a part of God's overall purpose for his elect, but was in fact a design in itself, a divine intent regarding the redemption of Christ's sheep. Consequently, every aspect of Jesus' atoning work was involved in God's purpose or design, so that the sufficiency of his sacrifice cannot be detached from the divine intent without damaging the doctrine as a whole. Christ's prayer to his Father, namely, that he desired those who had been given to him by the Father be with him in heaven, expresses that the very parameters of God's love and grace (which includes the sufficiency of Jesus' atonement) never extended beyond those very ones who were given to him. (John 17:24)

Sufficiency advocates have no Scriptural warrant for wresting the doctrine of the atonement from its biblical and covenantal context (which incorporates God's purpose and design) in order to place it in some hermeneutical no-man's land, wherein it can be poked and prodded at, and modified as one sees fit. The atonement is not a matter which can be viewed "in and of itself," "objectively," or "apart from God's purpose." As already noted, the atonement is in itself a design; consequently, it is a doctrine which can, and ought, only ever to be viewed in its proper Scriptural context. Anything short of this must be regarded as unscriptural, and hence, erroneous.(11) But further, the hypothetical nature of the sufficiency concept involves its advocates in other charges corollary to its unscriptural nature. First, the argument that Christ's death was sufficient for all essentially renders all such who adhere to this view as hypothetical universalists. When one argues that Christ shed his blood sufficiently for all, be it ever so hypothetically and cautiously presented, it is no different from plainly stating that the Lord did in fact die for every single sinful human being.

All such who imbibe this concept are endeavoring to hold opposite positions simultaneously, viz.--a limited and unlimited view of Christ's death. And the only thing which gives sufficiency advocates a sense of comfort and safety in this manifest contradiction is that they hold the latter point in the blissful state of hypothesis. However, as will be seen shortly, this hypothetical bubble bursts upon consideration that it forms the basis to concrete evangelistic practice. In line with the present point, let us ask the following question: How can Christ's atonement be sufficient for all since God never intended it for any but the elect? The response comes from the sufficiency advocate: Would Christ have had to suffer more than he did had God so desired to save more than the elect?(12) This, however, is an utterly inappropriate response. The question can never be, would Christ have had to suffer more than he did in order for God to save more than the elect had he so desired, but rather, what did God, according to the Scriptures, actually intend and accomplish? Sufficiency advocates are in the habit of saying in the same breath that God only intended to save the elect, but that Christ's blood is sufficient to save the reprobate had God so desired to employ it to that end.(13) Herein is the hypothetical universalism of the sufficiency concept clearly manifest. Yet in the end, no Scriptural warrant exists for the divorcing of the sufficiency of the atonement from God's decretal purpose.

Secondly, the notion that Jesus' blood was shed sufficiently for all inevitably involves its adherents in unwittingly ascribing a duality to the will of God. Undoubtedly, many will denounce this criticism with the retort: the sufficiency concept is argued apart from God's will and purpose in mind. Be this retort as it may, we wonder then why Calvinists like Owen and Pink insist on making statements like "if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that purpose," and "had God so pleased." Are these statements not expressive of will? If the sufficiency concept really avoids God's purpose and design altogether, why is any mention made of God intending to do something had he so desired?(14) To what end is such a "just in case" clause appropriated? Such words indicate a hypothetical will conjoined with a real will and purpose. Will not these Calvinists make up their minds? Either God intended to save all, and in fact accomplished that, or he intended to save only some, and did indeed fulfill this. Yet the sufficiency concept leaves its advocates in a pendulum-like state relative to God's will, incessantly swinging back and forth between hypothesis and reality. And this in turn often results in the commingling of the two, with any distinction between them lost.

The second problem with the sufficiency concept is that it forms the foundation to the evangelistic practice of many Calvinists. Now the Scriptures declare, "to the law and to the testimony." (Isa. 8:20) God's word represents the only true foundation to spiritually valid doctrine and practice. We are not directed by the Holy Writ to the hypothetical concoctions of men's brains. Divine precept and example are what we require for all things Christian, and especially for evangelistic endeavor. And for evangelism we have both command and example. (Matt. 28:19,20; the book of Acts) And yet, as already noted, sufficiency advocates stumble over the command of Mark 16:15 in relation to their professed belief in limited atonement. And so, what have they done? They have not questioned their interpretation of Mark 16:15, (i.e. relative to the words "every creature") but have rather concocted a hypothetical view of the atonement, which has no foundation in God's word, and have made that (and not God's word) the foundation for their evangelistic practice. Hence, their evangelism is founded upon a hypothesis, and not upon God's word.(15) Thus, in the end they have in actuality no divine authority for their missionary practice.

But the situation gets worse than this. As pointed out earlier, the sufficiency concept renders its adherents hypothetical universalists. If such a charge is too strong for some to stomach, they certainly cannot be reckoned more than Arminian; but in no sense can such be regarded as thoroughly consistent believers and practitioners relative to limited atonement. Indeed, how can they be, since their evangelistic practice is founded upon the hypothetical idea that Christ died for every single human being sufficiently? But herein lies the worseness of the situation. Apart from actual evangelistic practice, sufficiency advocates may indeed be reckoned hypothetical universalists. But once evangelistic endeavor has been undertaken, as founded upon this hypothetical view of Christ's death, sufficiency advocates cease to be hypothetical, and become real or practical universalists or Arminians. Once engaged in a practice founded upon hypothesis, sufficiency advocates have crossed the line from hypothesis to reality. This conclusion is inescapable.

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, states the following relative to Christ's atonement and evangelistic practice:

The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide?(16)

His son, A. A. Hodge, makes the following similar comments:

It is God's purpose to receive and save all that believe on his Son, elect or not...We believe as fully as they do (a) that the Atonement is sufficient for all...If the non-elect believes, he will none the less be saved because of his non-election. If he elect does not believe and persevere to the end, he will none the more be saved because of his election.(17)

W. G. T. Shedd notes:

The atonement is sufficient in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and this fact should be stated because it is a fact. There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided. "All things are now ready." Therefore the call to "come" is universal. It is plain, that the offer of the atonement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy.(18)

While other Calvinistic sufficiency advocates may vary in their precise wording from these men, these three quotes are nontheless fairly representative of the position occupied by those whose evangelistic practice is founded on the sufficiency concept of Christ's death. Aside from the various glaring heresies evident in these statements,(19) they represent clear testimony that once the sufficiency concept is put into practice via evangelistic endeavor, these erstwhile hypothetical universalists do in fact become real and practical universalists. This fact is so glaringly evident in the statements made by both the Hodges, that further comment seems superfluous. Both clearly speak in positive terms of the real possibility that a reprobate might in fact be saved if he believes.(20) The younger Hodge particularly states that "it is God's purpose to receive and save all that believe on his Son, elect or not..." And such views are predicated on the very idea that Christ's death possesses a sufficiency that extends beyond its efficiency.(21)

Charles Hodge also makes the statement, "So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.'" Here is yet further confirmation relative to both the simultaneous contrarieties evident among Calvinists concerning the atonement, and how hypothesis quickly gives way to reality in conjunction with evangelism. The very idea that the non-elect do not finally enter the lake of fire without an atonement is heretical in the highest degree. How can a reprobate be cast into the lake of fire when there is an atonement for him? Or, as per Shedd, if there is no sin of man which must include the sin of unbelief for which an infinite atonement has not been provided, how can there be so much as one single soul in hell? To have an atonement, or reconciliation, must mean one's sins have been imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness has been imputed to him--the result being no condemnation and eternal life. (Rom. 5:1-21; Rom. 8:1; 2 Cor. 5:21) Otherwise, there is no atonement at all! Hodge, along with the famous "Calvinistic" Synod of Dort, is speaking in typical Arminian fashion, arguing there will be untold millions in hell for whom Christ died. Perhaps this is not what Hodge really meant, but then, it is difficult to grasp what else he could possibly mean by stating those in the lake of fire will not be there for want of an atonement.(23)

The stark Scriptural reality in contrast to Hodge and all the sufficiency advocates with him, is that the reprobate will in fact be cast into the lake of fire precisely because they have no atonement. Their iniquities have not been imputed to Christ. Their sins have not been forgiven. Their debt has not been paid. They have no reconciliation, no adoption, no justification, no sanctification, or any other blessing connected with salvation. Christ shed not so much as a drop of blood for any of the reprobate, and thus not having Christ punished in their stead, they must be punished eternally for their sins. Christ's atoning work is without doubt infinite in value, dignity, and sufficiency, but only with respect to the elect. It is nothing short of an argumentum ad absurdum to state that an atonement is available and ready for the reprobate whom God never in fact intended to save, and will never save. Since the Lord never intended to save such, then Christ was never sent to die for such in any sense possible. The main point, however, to be emphasized here is how clearly the sufficiency concept, when put into evangelistic practice, greatly blurs, yea, completely destroys any distinction between hypothesis and reality regarding Christ's atonement and the reprobate.

In light of the preceding brief consideration of the sufficiency concept of Christ's death, it will be readily perceived that any quest for something called genuine Calvinism must in evitably prove irrelevant and meaningless. Not one of the individuals quoted in the preceding discussion would ever be deemed anything less than a genuine Calvinist from a purely historical and traditional standpoint. However, when viewed in the light of God's Holy Writ, they are all weighed and found wanting. The sufficiency concept simply has no Scriptural warrant to exist. Consequently, those that profess to believe in the doctrines of grace should not be so zealous about the name Calvinist, nor be agitated or worried when accused of not lining up with the great Calvinists of the past or present. Those that desire to follow Christ should be concerned with one thing only--what do the Scriptures declare concerning the truth, or in particular, the atonement. We firmly believe in the doctrines of grace, but we do not care to be called Calvinists, for to us it is both a meaningless and misleading term. We are not convinced that any of the men quoted earlier was a true and consistent believer in limited atonement.

(1) Louis Berkhof notes relative to the extent of the atonement that, "The question with which we are concerned at this point is not (a) whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men, since this is admitted by all..." Systematic Theology, p. 393.

Arminians have generally made the declaration that such who believe in limited atonement cannot practice evangelism. The pitiful thing relative to this declaration is that a great many people who profess to believe in limited atonement believe it. This has led in consequence to at least two erroneous reactions. Some who believe in limited atonement do not engage in evangelistic endeavor at all. While many of this sort have erroneously based their practice on God's decretal purpose, as opposed to his revealed commands, the Arminian declaration above has also played a large role in their inactive stance relative to evangelism. Others who believe in limited atonement, but who also firmly believe in the practice of evangelism, have proceeded to pervert the doctrine of the atonement in order to justify their evangelistic endeavor. And this evangelistic practice, as based on a perverted view of the atonement, owes its origin largely to the Arminian declaration above. Falling prey to the nonsequitorial argument that belief in limited atonement automatically nullifies the practice of evangelism, many professed particular redemptionists have proceeded to build their evangelistic practice upon an unscriptural view of Christ's death, viz.--the sufficiency concept just discussed in the preceding section. Thus, a false Arminian criticism has had a devastating effect on the evangelistic practice of such who profess an adherence to limited atonement, on the one hand to an outright abandonment of the practice, and on the other, to a practice pitched upon a false doctrinal foundation.

But there is ultimately no incongruity between the doctrine of limited atonement and the practive of evangelism. The true scope and design of evangelism needs to be borne in mind here. When the Lord Jesus issued to the apostles the Commission, (Matt. 28:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16) he was not issuing an imperative which in any way conflicted with his atoning work on behalf of the elect. How could he? Yet professing Christians have, by either poor exegesis or blatant eisegesis, made the Lord contradict Himself. Arminians feel themselves to be much more consistent than Calvinists in that since they believe Jesus died for every single human being, they are in a position to preach, or "offer," the gospel to everyone without distinction. To believe Jesus died only for the elect, and yet to attempt to preach the gospel to everyone say they, is palpably self-condemning. After all, how can one preach the gospel to everyone if Jesus did not die for everyone? And seeing Jesus commanded the gospel to be preached, or offered, to every creature, (Mk. 16:15) how can a particular redemptionist consistently follow this through in practice? Such Arminian reasoning has embarrassed many a Calvinist, and its perceived "weight" has influenced Calvinists in such directions as noted in the preceding paragraph.

Yet despite the fact that many Calvinists have fallen victim to this specious form of reasoning, this Arminian conception of evangelism in reality possesses no Scriptural weight whatsoever. There are two crucial elements we need to consider relative to the Arminian view of evangelism, and the ensuing adverse effects they have had on Calvinistic interpretation and application of Scriptural evangelism. First, there is the offer concept of the gospel.(1) There is evident among the majority of professing Christians both the perception and conviction that at the very heart of New Testament evangelism lies the constitutional element that salvation is to be offered to every sinner without distinction. Many are of the mind that without this element, there could be no such thing as evangelism. Yet the reality is that the Scriptures do not teach the gospel is to be offered in any sense at all. The offer concept of salvation is nowhere to be found in God's word. The only offering God's word recognizes in conjunction with salvation is that which the Son made of himself to the Father on behalf of his elect. (Mk. 10:45; John 10:15-18; Heb. 9:28; Heb. 10:12-14) According to 2 Timothy 1:9, the grace of salvation "was given" to the elect "in Christ Jesus before time began." Salvation then, was already possessed by the elect prior to the foundation of the world, before they even had their being.

Since salvation was given to the elect prior to time, there is no room for the notion that salvation is to be "offered" to any sinner. John Gill rightly said:

...that there are universal offers of grace I utterly deny; nay, I deny they are made to any; no, not to God's elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit; much less are they made to others...(2)

Salvation represents a gift of grace, something given by God to his chosen ones, and as such cannot be represented as something to be offered by preachers of the gospel to sinners.(3) Closely connected to the offer concept of salvation is the element of conditionalism. No one who advocates that the gospel is an offer can avoid this aspect of conditionalism. For Arminians, this concept presents no difficulty, seeing they make the salvation of any sinner depend entirely on his use or abuse of free will. To them, salvation depends entirely on the sinner, and not on the God of all grace; salvation is conditional in nature and not unconditional.

But the situation is not the same with Calvinists who hold to the offer concept. They profess allegiance to unconditional salvation. They love to speak of unconditional election, salvation by grace and not by works, and that "salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9) and not of man. And yet, what have we already seen from the pens of some of the most ardent Calvinists of the sufficiency/offer school? Plenty of conditionalism! John Owen writes how salvation is bestowed upon sinners, "some of them upon condition that they do believe."(4) And Charles Hodge plainly states that Christ's righteousness is "offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally."(5) What is thee in these statements that any Arminian would object to? They are clearly not only contradictory to the Scriptural doctrine of salvation by pure grace, but also contravene their own professed views of salvation by pure grace. According to 1 Corinthians 12:3, "no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit," clearly indicating one must already be in possession of the Spirit prior to being able to make such a confession. Believing, or exercising faith in Christ, is always a manifestation one is already saved. As the infant's first cry is evidence of life, and not its procuring cause, so too, belief in Christ is evidence of spiritual life, and not its procuring cause. Conditionalism is not an element that belongs to the New Testament gospel, whose message is not "do and live," (Lev. 18:5) but "live and do." (Acts 13:48) The elect are regenerated and saved in order to believe, not believe in order to be regenerated and saved. (John 3:3-8)

Secondly, there is the interpretation of the words "every creature" in Mark 16:15 to consider. Arminians, of course, interpret these words to the effect that the Lord desires that every single human being hear the gospel so that all might have an opportunity or chance to be saved. Calvinists of the sufficiency/offer school, while perhaps not going so far as to predicate the salvation of any sinner upon the basis of opportunity or chance, but rather upon God's grace, nontheless generally agreewith the Arminian interpretation that "every creature" has reference to all sinners without distinction. R. L. Dabney states, "When, for instance, the Redeemer commands us to 'preach the gospel to every creature,' it is impossible by an exegetical pressure to make the words mean, 'every elect creature.'"(6) He defends this position by noting that the Lord "adds in the next verse, (Mark 16:16) 'He that believeth not shall be damned.' This possible subject is among the 'every-creature' body to whom the overtures of mercy are to be made."(7) While Dabney's words at first glance appear to have weight, there are serious exegetical and theological problems with them.

To begin with, there is no exegetical necessity requiring us to include the unbelieving that shall be damned of verse 16 with the "every creature" of verse 15. All that can be demonstrated here exegetically is that the Lord is simply making a declarative statement of fact. Such who believe and are immersed with be saved; such who believe not will be damned. That Christ has some group of people in mind in verse 15 is beyond doubt, but that it must include the reprobate referred to in verse 16 is not exegetically certain at all. The mere reference to the reprobate in verse 16 by way of factual statement does not prove they were in the Lord's mind relative to intent and desire in conjunction with the Commission. Undoubtedly, in the very execution of the Commission, the apostles had in their auditory both the elect and reprobate. And time and time again the apostles witnessed the truth of the declarative statement Christ made in Mark 16:16. (e.g. Acts 17:32-34) But that the reprobate were on hand to hear the gospel preached, and that they subsequently did not believe, does not prove they were in any sense the intended objects of the Commission.

Another exegetical problem with Dabney's interpretation of Mark 16:15 is his incipient presumption that preaching the gospel is equal to offering salvation, or, to use his words "making overtures of mercy." This eisegetical presumptive approach to the text ultimately influences and colors his whole exegetical approach to the words "every creature." But as noted earlier, the only offer concept recognized by God's word is that which the Son made to the Father on behalf of the elect. Gospel ministers have nothing to offer to lost sinners; their business is simply to preach, proclaim, announce, and declare the good news of Jesus Christ. Involved with this are also the element of explanation and exhortation. Salvation is a gift that resides solely with God, and consequently, it is not in the hands of ministers to offer promiscuously to anyone on the basis of some creaturely-performed condition.

From a theological standpoint, Dabney's position suffers from at least two major problems. First, to represent Christ as desiring the reprobate to be the objects of "overtures of mercy," when in fact God has no intention of showing them soteriological mercy, is to make the Lord issue words which conflict with his own atoning work. Why the Lord would desire salvation to be offered to such he knew very well he did not die for, is beyond explanation.(8) Secondly, Dabney's position argues again for a duality in the will of God, who ultimately wills not to save the reprobate, and yet wills salvation to be offered to them, as though he did desire to save them. Such a scenario clearly represents God as possessed of conflicting desires.(9) And no amount of explanation or analogical illustration can relieve this scenario of its evident self-contradiction. But the Scriptures nowhere represent God in conflict with himself relative to his will regarding the objects of either his grace or wrath.

Mr. Dabney greatly errs when he urges in regard to the "every creature" of Mark 16:15 that "it is impossible by any exegetical pressure to make the words mean 'every elect creature.'" The simple fact of the matter is that the Lord Jesus could not have had anyone else in mind but the elect when he gave this Commission. And no exegetical pressure is required to prove this. Had the Lord the reprobate in mind, this would have represented a clear contradiction to the limited nature of his atoning work, which was restricted to the elect. All too many have completely misinterpreted the indiscriminate character of the Lord's Commission relative to the words "every creature." It is typically assumed that the indiscriminateness of the Commission relates to the reprobate and elect, so that the preaching of the gospel is to be unto all without distinction. But this is not at all what the Lord had in mind. As noted earlier, the Lord would never issue an imperative which would in any way conflict with his soteriological intentions for the elect.

Prior to Christ's death and resurrection, the Commission was already a process being carried out by the disciples. However, it was restricted to the lost sheep of the house of Israel--the Gentiles were as yet excluded as objects of the Commission. In Matthew 10:5,6: Jesus specifically instructed the disciples relative to their temporary preaching assignment, "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Even the Lord himself declared to the woman of Canaan, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 15:24) But why such restrictions to the lost sheep among the Jews?(10) It was not that the Lord had no soteriological intentions for his sheep among the Gentiles, (cf. Isa. 9:1,2; John 10:15,16; John 11:51,52) but the theocratic system still intact represented a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. The Lord's death did away with this "wall of separation," thereby opening the door to the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles in addition to the Jews. (cf. Eph. 2:11-18) Thus, when Christ gave the Commission in Matthew 28:19,20 and Mark 16:15,16: he was not so much issuing a new, as an expanded Commission. The expanded element is represented by the "all nations" of the former passage and "every creature" of the latter passage.

Consequently, the indiscriminateness of the Commission has nothing to do with reprobate and elect, but rather with Jew and Gentile. The apostles were no longer to restrict themselves to the sheep among the Jews, but were to seek out the sheep of Christ among the Gentiles as well. The apostle Paul knew this to be so, and thus could write to Timothy, "Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (2 Tim. 2:10) This is a passage largely ignored by many professing Christians who think evangelism embraces the reprobate as well as the elect. Paul does not say he endured all things for the sake of "sinners as sinners," or for the sake of "the elect and reprobate." But what does he say? "I endure all things for the sake of the ELECT." Paul knew perfectly well who he was after relative to the prosecution of evangelism. His evangelistic endeavor corresponded in strict conformity to his belief in, and exposition of, limited atonement.

Relative to the foregoing, many have wrongly surmised that if evangelism is to be restricted to the elect, then one must know who the elect are ahead of time. But this is not so. In fact, evangelism is the means by which the elect are found out. When, for example, Paul preached to the men of Athens, (Acts 17:22-34) there is no evidence Paul knew who was who in his auditory. For all he knew, all might have been reprobate, or all might be elect, or some of both groups might be present. His actions corresponded to the sower in the Lord's parable. (Matt. 13:3-8) He did not know who, if any, were elect, but this does not entail as a result that he was aimless and Arminian, as is proven by his own words in 2 Tim. 2:10. But that some did believe demonstrates that evangelism draws the elect out from among the masses. Evangelism is God's appointed means by which gospel preachers call forth the regenerated elect unto the grace-evidencing acts of repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This view alone is consistent with the atoning work Christ wrought on behalf of his elect. And as such, the criticism that belief in limited atonement nullifies evangelism is seen to be completely without foundation.

(1) The offer concept of the gospel forms one of the most bizarre elements in Calvinistic literature relative to the atonement and evangelism. The amazing lengths to which Calvinists have gone to "justify" God's "sincerity" in "offering" salvation to such he never intended to save, and will never save, makes for the most pathetic and pitiful reading. One can but marvel that the minds of such men did not implode from the very pressure of trying to reconcile something so evidently irreconcilable and unscriptural. It also needs to be noted that to justify this concept in being practically implemented, a theological basis was required: this was supplied by the sufficiency concept.

(6) Discussions of Robert L. Dabney: God's Indiscriminate Proposals of mercy, vol. 1, p. 306.

(7) Ibid., vol. 1, p. 306.

(8) This theme, of course, forms the very subject Dabney seeks to grapple with in the article referred to earlier in his Discussions. His whole essay makes for the most pathetic reading indeed. It is a hopeless cause in the end. That Christ would desire salvation to be offered to such he not only did not die for, but also never interceded for (cf. John 17:9), makes for a most inexplicable and confusing theology of the atonement in relation to evangelistic practice.

(9) It is also to be wondered how the supposed "sincere offer" of salvation to the reprobate on the part of God can be exegetically and theologically squared with such passages as Psalm 2:4 and 37:13, wherein God is represented as laughing at the wicked, holding them in derision, and knowing that their day is coming. How can this reality subsist alongside the notion of a "tender, loving, and sincere proposal of mercy" to the reprobate? And any dichotomy existing between the Old and New Testaments can have absolutely no effect on God's eternal purpose regarding the non-elect.

(10) It is highly instructive to note in these passages how the Lord singles out the lost sheep of Israel (in distinction from the goats) as the objects of the Commission. The Lord knew perfectly well who he was here to save, not as Arminians and sufficiency/offer Calvinists represent him.