# Anxious Inquirer After Salvation John Angell James and Limited Atonement



## Afterthought (Nov 24, 2011)

I came across that book, and I looked through it. I came across some seemingly troublesome statements. If we can, how can we say these things to people who are inquiring after salvation? Most of the questions have to do with limited atonement, but there's also the "God loves the whole world," "Christ is anxiously waiting to save," and "God does not delight in the death of a sinner" kinds of things. I can understand some of it making sense; the Christian does indeed have to believe Christ died for him or her without looking into God's decree, and somehow, the transition between believing otherwise to believing that must occur. But I wonder whether such language is misleading, especially in our day (or perhaps not, since this was written to inquirers who would presumably know no theology), or whether it is appropriate?


"You are to believe that God really loves the world, and is truly willing and waiting to save the chief of sinners, and that he therefore is benevolent to you: and thus, instead of dwelling in the idea of a mere general or universal love, you are to bring the matter home to yourself, and to believe that God has good-will towards you, has given Christ to die for you; you are a part of the world which God loved, and for which Christ died, and you are not to lose yourself in the crowd."(p.87)

"The first simple act of faith is a belief that Christ died for all sinners, for the whole world: the next, as arising out of it, if it be not indeed included in it, is that he died for us as part of the world. "I believe," says the sinner, who is coming with confidence to Christ, "that 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,' John iii. 16: then, as I am a part of the world, I believe he loved me, and is willing to save me:" this is faith."(p.125)

"Your business, at present, is with faith: you are to believe; you are to commit your soul to the atonement of Christ; you are to be persuaded that he died for sinners, died for you, and is willing to save you. This is the the assurance you are to seek; and this is what the apostle means by the full assurance of faith; an unhesitating confidence that the Lord Jesus is able and willing to save to the uttermost; and, therefore, able and willing to save you."(p.128)

"If we had reson to suppose that [God] was unfriendly towards us; that he was reluctant to save us...this would indeed be discouraging, and might induce a fear that we should not succeed. But the contrary is the fact. "God is love.".... He even delighteth in mercy." "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." "He delighteth not in the death of a sinner but would rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live.".... We cannot please him better than by asking him to save us, and by expecting salvation at his hands"(p.183)

"How much is [Christ's] heart fixed upon the salvation of sinners! this was the joy that was set before him,and for which he endured the cross, despising the shame; this is the travail of his soul, and by which its ineffable longings will be satisfied. Your salvation is his business, and the accomplishment of which will be his reward."(p.186)



Thanks for any help!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2011)

As a counselor, you are simply encouraging the anxious soul to take that which is *objective*, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and make it subjective, which is to say, I believe he did all of these things _for me_.

I cannot say to him, "You are one of God's elect." But he may say to himself, "Christ died for sinners, and won salvation for them. He commands me to believe in this hope. I wish to believe it. And thus I may believe it. And the freedom to believe it is a gift of His Spirit. Hence, I have every reason to believe that what was surely done by him (objectively) is subjectively applied to me. His death is for me, this I believe." And believing, we have life in his name.

As for the language of the quote, "Christ died for all sinners," some might find it objectionable, as if it contradicted the doctrine of particular, efficacious redemption (or limited-atonement). But it is not necessary to import a full doctrine of universal atonement into that phraseology. The little word, "for," is susceptible to equivocation. The author is constructing a pathway to personal assurance of faith.

In charity, I would assume that he means the anxious soul should begin by realizing that Christ's death was a sufficient sacrifice for "all sinners." for a whole world of the lost. That is to say, he should be persuaded that Christ's death in no way falls short of any man, as if it lacked the intrinsic power to save more than one, or one-million. So I should not wonder if I could be the million-and-first, and have no hope.

In technical theological terms and understandings, we are careful to distinguish between the error of a universal atonement (which many people then limit in effectiveness; i.e. the atonement merely makes salvation possible) and a particular atonement, which is inseparably partnered with an efficacious intent to the interested parties. We do not divide between the intent to provide an atonement and the intent to apply the atonement. We view the interested parties as identical, and the atonement intrinsically efficacious.

But we can and do speak of the atonement at having intrinsic value, such that it might have saved all the sinners on not just one world, but ten-thousand worlds. The sufficiency of the death of Christ is unlimited. But the efficacy is limited, to the elect. But the question is not, "am I elect?" Rather, the proper question is, "do I believe?" The power of Christ's death is applied to every believer. The question of assurance is to be answered first, not by reference to the eternal counsels of God, but to the immediate reality of faith. The person who lacks assurance does not need a crash course in the 5 Points. He needs a practical syllogism that takes him from objective fact to personal appropriation.

In short, I don't think the quotes are objectionable, though (as with most any expression), the words are capable of being misconstrued.


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 25, 2011)

Thanks! It does seem strange that we could say "Christ died for all sinners" and also "Christ did not die for all sinners." It makes me wonder what such people think when they later find out about limited atonement....but I guess that's not the point in such a writing as the "Anxious Inquirer" is. Thanks again for clearing up those quotes!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 25, 2011)

Afterthought said:


> It does seem strange that we could say "Christ died for all sinners" and also "Christ did not die for all sinners."


True, it could be strange if we don't acknowledge the equivocation in the word "for" in each sentence. In the first case, we mean that no sinner is excluded from the _scope_ of the ransom. We are not talking about the application of the merit of the atonement to an individual; nor do we speak here of the divine intention for the sacrifice as it is laid-down. We simply say that the WORLD is the scope, without prior exclusions, Jn.3:16, 1Jn.2:2. In this, we have a good foundation for an uninhibited and promiscuous gospel call.

There are those who say that Christ died *for* all sinners, including those who are in hell, or who will end up there before the completion of the new heavens and earth in the end of this age. And what they mean is that he really did die an atoning death, which was intended even for hellions, and which did in truth remove their debt--the sin, the guilt, the penalty due. In other words, they are claiming an intention and an application for Christ's atoning death, in addition to the idea of _scope_. *For* sinners, as these interpreters use that term, means an across the board, undifferentiated application of the full range of redemptive benefits to every individual.

For some, the aforementioned representation of the atonement--with some of those atoned-for still writhing in hell for eternity--clearly demonstrates the boundless grace of God. I would think there might be some question, as to why there ARE torments of hell anymore, since the blood of Jesus is for the removal of the wrath and curse of God, and they affirm that such condemnation has been removed. But again, this comes back to the question of efficacy, which is limited in this view (for those who still believe in hell--some have become universalists); over against the Reformed view which limits the application of the atonement, and does not limit its efficacy.

In fact, hell isn't primarily an existential place (although a "place" is required for bodies to occupy); rather hell is primarily the presence of God in wrath against sin, without the blessing of a Mediator. But if the wrath of God has been turned aside for every individual, bar none...? They say, "his blood was shed *for* them all..." And does Jesus plead for them in hell? He prays for all that the Father has given him, Jn.17:9; who are brought near by the precious blood of Christ, Eph.2:13; Heb.7:25. Or is the Son eternally at odds with his Father, respecting those suffering in hell?

These questions, it seems to me, are intractable for those who adopt a universal intention and application for the atonement--unless they adopt universalism, and do away with hell entirely, or make it a place outside the positive activity of God, where the miserable stay miserable only by their choice.
______________________

But the answers, it appears to me, are much more satisfying when the efficacy of the atonement is not limited, though the intent and application is. When the Reformed interpreter uses *for sinners* in the second case, he denies that the death of Christ is applied to those who abide in hell, who remain under the wrath of God. To remain under that wrath is NOT to have the blood of Christ avail for that person--not because it fails to do its job, for wherever it DOES the job, it AVAILS (it is perfectly, unlimitedly efficatious). It is the unbeliever who makes the case for his own abiding under the wrath of God (refusing to believe in the Son for his own good, Jn.3:36). He is bound for hell, and he will not believe in the Son given *for him*, and so Christ will not be *for him*.

In this way, I find the "strangeness" of the seemingly contrasting expressions evaporates. Behind it all is the secret ways of God, his mysterious foreordination of all things, even the wicked for the day of destruction, Prv.16:4. But for us, we see Christ dying for "humanity," which is general and nonparticular, covering everyone. And we see men refusing to believe in him, and therefore *some men do not have Christ*; consequently neither have they an atonement for sin. His death, therefore, is *not for* them.

1Jn.5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and *he that hath not the Son of God hath not life*."


----------



## Afterthought (Nov 26, 2011)

Thank you! That was very helpful!


----------

