Balmer:

LECTURE XIII. ON THE GOSPEL CALL.

Elements of the Gospel. Substance of the Gospel Call. Its Freeness. On Faith and Repentance as Conditions of Salvation. On the Use of this Term. The Universality of the Gospel Offer. Principles of the Divine Procedure. Infinite Value of the Sacrifice of Christ. Harmony of Unlimited Call with the grand Characteristics of the Scheme of Redemption. Consistency of the Unlimited Offer with the Interests of Holiness. Special Encouragement given to the Convicted and the Desponding. The Gospel Call Honest and Sincere. Express Declarations of Scripture. Conduct of God in giving the Means of Grace Outward and Inward. Forbearance and Kindness. Recorded Instances. Objections Answered. Quotation from Howe.

IN the application of redemption the Holy Spirit is the grand agent; and I therefore judged it expedient to state at considerable length the proofs which establish the reality of his influences. I have directed your attention also to what may be called the economy of divine influences; and have presented you with a brief sketch of the principal operations of the Holy Ghost. In the application of redemption the Spirit is the chief, but he is not the sole agent; for we ourselves are called to be active. The blessings of redemption are offered to us in the gospel, and we are invited and commanded to accept them with becoming readiness and gratitude. The next subject then, which presents itself for consideration, is the gospel call; under which are included its various overtures, and invitations, and requirements.

The gospel is the good news of salvation. It is the revelation of the scheme of mercy–a message or proclamation from the Omnipotent Ruler of the universe, calling on us to return to our allegiance, and to accept of pardon, sanctifying influence, and eternal life. It may tend to simplify our conceptions of the gospel, or the message of mercy, if we regard it as consisting of three parts, or comprehending three things,–a revelation, a call or invitation, and a promise. It contains, first, a revelation or declaration of the wonderful plan which God, in infinite love, has adopted for the deliverance of our fallen race from guilt and misery, and for raising them to imperishable happiness and glory. It is this part of the gospel more especially that is styled the testimony, or record, or witness of God–a term peculiarly significant and instructive. In its primary acceptation that term refers to the deposition or testimony given by a witness on oath in a court of justice. It intimates therefore that the Most High God condescends to present himself to his creatures in that character and attitude; that in addressing us in the gospel, he speaks to us in a manner the most solemn and emphatic, that what he declares to us is truth, nothing but truth, and the whole truth, respecting our immortal interests, which it is necessary for us to know. The gospel comprehends, secondly, a call or invitation, under which may be included its various overtures and proposals, its entreaties and exhortations, its demands and injunctions. The overtures and invitations and injunctions of the gospel spring up naturally out of its discoveries, and the great object of them is to call on man to believe its discoveries, and to accept of its blessings. These various overtures, and invitations, and demands, constitute substantially one call; but that call is exhibited in these diversified forms and aspects, because the author of it presents himself both as a benefactor, tendering blessings to our acceptance, and as a sovereign requiring our obedience. These overtures, and invitations, and requirements, are enforced by what may be regarded as the third part of the gospel, namely, by a promise, or a collection of promises; the import or amount of which is, that salvation shall infallibly be bestowed on all who are willing to accept it as the free gift of God, through Jesus Christ. The overtures and invitations of the gospel are enforced not only by “promises exceedingly great and precious,” but by denunciations the most terrific and alarming. These denunciations are dictated by boundless compassion, as well as by inflexible justice; they are naturally presupposed in the overtures and promises of the gospel; but, strictly speaking, they do not constitute an integral part of it, and are rather to be regarded as its necessary appendage or accompaniment.

It is the second part of the gospel that I am at present to consider; that is, its call or offer, comprehending its invitations, and exhortations, and requirements. And what I have to say in the discussion of this topic may be summed up in the following propositions:–

Read the rest of this entry »

Foxe:

We have now made manifest unto you, hat all the tyranny of DEATH is extinguished, and we delivered from the servile yoke thereof, by the means, and conquest of this our Triumphant PRINCE. When I say DEATH, I understand also thereby the whole army or violence of mischiefs, which any ways annoy our life, both these which were the cause of DEATH, and those also that accompany, and follow it.

The Law
abrogated by
Christ. Rom. 6.

For DEATH, of itself is nothing else, but the punishment, and wages for SIN, (according to Paul’s saying) even as “the strength of SIN is the law.” For where no Law is, there is no Transgression, “there the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven, against all ungodliness of men, which withhold the truth in unrighteousness.” And to this wrath we were all sometime subject, “being dead in Sin and serving Satan the Prince of this world,” under whose kingdom we were all wretched, and miserable. For what greater thrall, or more extreme misery could there happen, than that SATAN, troubling, and disturbing all things as he listed [wished], should bear all the sway, and alone usurp the kingdom, being not conquerable by any force of Nature, or power of Prince? All things being thus in a desperate case, the more glorious did the power of this our grand Champion appear, who with a marvelous victory, and singular overthrow, by suffering subdued the Enemy, and having vanquished the tyranny of DEATH by death, opened the everlasting gate of immortality to all that would come and enter therein. Wherefore he willing to communicate the fruit of this his benefit with all, who draws all unto himself, cries in the Gospel, saying, “Come under me, all you that labor, and are heaven laden, and I will refresh you,” [Matt. 11.]. And as he does accept all sorts of men, in that he invites, and allures all: so he excepts [excludes] no of burden, or grief, who promises that he will refresh us in all, and disburden us of them all.

John Foxe, Christ Triumphant (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, and Richard his Sonne, dwelling at Aldergate, 1579), 13a-41a. [Some reformatting, some spelling modernized; marginal references cited inline; square bracketed insert mine; and underlining mine.]

[Note: This point is important in the light 1) of the drift into the hypercalvinist doctrine of eternal justification (Gill, Hoeksema, et al); and 2) the tendency to deny that the living unbelieving elect were ever actually objects of and recipients of the punishing wrath of God (Owen, Girardeau, et al). Such a denial directly contradicts the plain force of Scripture.]

Balmer:

It has been justly remarked, that “there are three questions ‘respecting what has been termed the extent of the death of Christ, all of them of deep interest, though not of equal importance. Some hold that Christ died for all men, so as to secure their salvation;–this is a question between the Universalists and the great body of Christians, whether Calvinists or Arminians. Some hold that he died for all men, so as to procure for them easier terms of acceptance, and sufficient divine aid to enable them, to avail themselves of these terms;–this is a question between Arminians (or rather perhaps between those Arminians who verge towards Pelagianism and Calvinists. Some hold that not only did Christ die with the intention of saving the elect, but that he died for all men, so as to remove all the obstacles in the way of man’s salvation, except those which arise out of his own indisposition to receive it;–this is a question among Calvinists,“¹ a question belonging to that category of controversies sometimes designated “controversies among the orthodox.” It is well known that the last of these questions has recently attracted a considerable portion of attention in Scotland, particularly among the ministers and members of the United Secession. That there should not prevail among them a perfect identity of sentiment and speech on this topic, will seem less surprising, if it is considered that their subordinate standards leave room for some slight diversity. The Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, if they do not explicitly inculcate, seem evidently to countenance the doctrine of a limited atonement, the doctrine that the Savior died solely and exclusively for the elect.² But the Testimony last emitted, like some former official documents, teaches, that so far as the requisitions of law and justice are concerned, he has removed all obstacles to the salvation of all; a principle which lies at the basis of the preaching probably of every evangelical minister in Scotland.

There can be little doubt that in the Secession, and indeed in almost every other Christian community, the present tendency of opinion is towards that view of the Savior’s sacrifice, which regards it as having a general or extended reference, as wearing a benignant aspect to the race at large. Many who, a few years ago, would have been shocked at the assertion that Christ died for any besides the elect, will now admit that in some sense he died for all. Even of those, however, who concede this, the greater proportion repudiate the expression, if not the notion, of a universal atonement: while there are still many who maintain confidently that the Savior suffered and made atonement only for a limited and definite number.

There is reason to think that the prejudice against the doctrine of what is called a universal atonement originates in misapprehensions respecting it; misapprehensions engendered in part by the errors and extravagancies which have been blended with it by some of its professed friends. It would therefore be a service eminently seasonable, and of no small value, to furnish a distinct statement of the doctrine, and to separate it from the doubtful speculations and mistaken opinions which have been engrafted upon it. Such a statement, it is apprehended, will be found in the following Essay, extracted from an old and valuable treatise, which unhappily is now comparatively little known. The fragment here reprinted divides itself into two parts. The first is occupied in proving that “Christ died for all men;” the second in proving that “he did not die for all equally; that, while his death secures infallibly the salvation of the elect, it merely places the rest of mankind in what is called a salvable state–a state ill which they may be saved on gospel terms.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Balmer:¹

It has been justly remarked, that ” there are three questions ‘respecting what has been termed the extent of the death of Christ, all of them of deep interest, though not of equal importance. Some hold that Christ died for all men, so as to secure their salvation;–this is a question between the Universalists and the great body of Christians, whether Calvinists or Arminians. Some hold that he died for all men, so as to procure for them easier terms of acceptance, and sufficient divine aid to enable them, to avail themselves of these terms;–this is a question between Arminians ‘(or rather perhaps between those Arminians who verge towards Pelagianism)’ and Calvinists. Some hold that not only did Christ die with the intention of saving the elect, but that he died for all men, so as to remove all the obstacles in the way of man’s salvation, except those which arise out of his own indisposition to receive it;–this is a question among Calvinists,”² a question belonging to that category of controversies sometimes designated ” controversies among the orthodox.” It is well known that the last of these questions has recently attracted a considerable portion of attention in Scotland, particularly among the ministers and members of the United Secession. That there should not prevail among them a perfect identity of sentiment and speech on this topic, will seem less surprising, if it is considered that their subordinate standards leave room for some slight diversity. The Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, if they do not explicitly inculcate, seem evidently to countenance the doctrine of a limited atonement, the doctrine that the Savior died solely and exclusively for the elect.³ But the Testimony last emitted, like some former official documents, teaches, that so far as the requisitions of law and justice are concerned, he has removed all obstacles to the salvation of all; a principle which lies at the basis of the preaching probably of every evangelical minister in Scotland.

There can be little doubt that in the Secession, and indeed in almost every other Christian community, the present tendency of opinion is towards that view of the Savior’s sacrifice, which regards it as having a general or extended reference, as wearing a benignant aspect to the race at large. Many who, a few years ago, would have been shocked at the assertion that Christ died for any besides the elect, will now admit that in some sense he died for all. Even of those, however, who concede this, the greater proportion repudiate the expression, if not the notion, of a universal atonement: while there are still many who maintain confidently that the Savior suffered and made atonement only for a limited and definite number.

There is reason to think that the prejudice against the doctrine of what is called a universal atonement originates in misapprehensions respecting it; misapprehensions engendered in part by the errors and extravagancies which have been blended with it by some of its professed friends. It would therefore be a service eminently seasonable, and of no small value, to furnish a distinct statement of the doctrine, and to separate it from the doubtful speculations and mistaken opinions which have been engrafted upon it. Such a statement, it is apprehended, will be found in the following Essay, extracted from an old and valuable treatise, which unhappily is now comparatively little known. The fragment here reprinted divides itself into two parts. The first is occupied in proving that ” Christ died for all men;” the second in proving that ” he did not die for all equally; that, while his death secures infallibly the salvation of the elect, it merely places the rest of mankind in what is called a salvable state–a state ill which they may be saved on gospel terms.”

Read the rest of this entry »