Westminster Conference 2018 Session 1

Paul Wells opened the Westminster Conferene this year with a very thorough paper on Amyraldism, the view that accepts four of the five points of Calvinism but not Limited Atonement. It was a very thorough paper and a good discussion followed. Here is an outline.

1. Amyraldianism in conflict

Pierre du Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianism 1619 deals with Amyraldism but the three main Amyraldian controversies (Roger Nicole)

1 Treatise on Predestination 1634 (Amyraut) > Synod of Alencon 1637

2 1641-1649 (1644 Synod of Charenton exonerated Amyraut and ended in the compromise of the Act of Thouars)

3 1655-1661 (Synod of Loudon 1559: Moderator Jean Daille, supporter of Amyraut)

The formula consensus Helvetica 1675

2. The order of the divine decree and election

1 The question of particularism and universalism

As supernaturalism is the mark of Christianity at large, and evangelicalism the mark of Protestantism, so particularism is the mark of Calvinism. The Calvinist .. holds with full consciousness that God the Lord, in his saving operations, deals not generally with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are actually saved. Thus, and thus only, he contends, can either the supernaturalism of salvation which is the mark of Christianity at large and which ascribes all salvation to God, or the immediacy of the operations of saving grace which is the mark of evangelicalism and which ascribes salvation to the direct working of God upon the soul, come to its rights and have justice accorded it. Particularism in the saving processes, he contends, is already given in the supernaturalism of salvation and in the immediacy of the operations of the divine grace; and the denial of particularism is constructively the denial of the immediacy of saving grace, that is, of evangelicalism, and of the supernaturalism of salvation, that is, of Christianity itself. It is logically the total rejection of Christianity.

The particularism of the saving operations of God which is thus the mark of Calvinism, it is possible, however, to apply more or less fully (or, shall we say, with more or less discernment?) in our thought of the activities of God relatively to his sinful creatures (or shall we say, broadly, relatively to his creatures?). Thus differing varieties of Calvinism have emerged in the history of thought. As they are distinguishable from one another by the place they give to particularism in the operations of God, that is as much as to say they are distinguished from one another by the place they give to the decree of election in the order of the divine decrees.

B B Warfield The Plan of salvation 87, 88

This is why Muller rules Amyraldianism in and Arminianism outside the Reformed faith.

2 Arminianism

• Provision of salvation for all by sending Christ (antecedent decree)
• Salvation procured for all who believe
• General grace sufficient given to all
• Election of those foreseen as having faith and obedience (consequent decree)

Pierre du Moulin Eclairissement des controverses 4-6

3 Calvinistic infralapsarianism

• Election of some to life in Christ
• Sending of Christ as Mediator to accomplish reconciliation
• Gift of the Holy Spirit to save those redeemed by repentance and faith

4 Amyraldianism

John Cameron very influential posthumously. His 1642 publication (following Amyraut's of 1634) was very influential.

• God's desire to save all (first mercy)
• Sending of the Son, remission of sins for all (impetration)
• Election of some to faith
• Salvation of those morally renewed by faith

Arminianism	Calvinism	Amyraldianism
Christ Saviour of all	Election of some to life (leaving others)	Divine desire to save all (first mercy)
Salvation procured for all who believe	Sending Christ to redeem the elect	Son of God sent as Saviour of all
Gift of persuasive grace for all	Holy Spirit regeneration, repentance and faith and union with Christ	Election of some to faith
Election by prescience of faith, consequent grace		Salvation on condition of faith

3. The nature of the divine decree in Amyraldianism

1 Sin, misery and the divine desire of salvation are equal and universal

2 Grace and redemption are equal and universal, provided men believe

3 Christ's humanity makes him one with all

4 Sacrifice, propitiation, salvation received from the Fathers are equally for all in the sanctified and glorified Christ

5 The condition: equal disposition in men to receive it

(equal dropped at the insistence of the synod is more precise than universal)

for Amyraut propitiaion is for all and salvation is presented to all, on condition that they believe.

Amyraut speaks about two different forms of predestination related to two distinct forms of the will of God in his treatise.

In his reply to the question of for whom Christ died, there are

• Two aspects of the one divine will expressed in two decrees
• Two forms of mercy, each with a precedent character in its recipients
• Two predestinations, to salvation and to faith
• Two covenants, one creational and legal the other the new covenant of grace

He seems to be aware of the problem of two decrees and is reluctant to speak of it. He says it is one in God's mind.

Summary Calvin and Amyraut

Calvin	Amyraut
One simple absolute will	A decree expressing two wills hypo/absolute
The secret and revealed will	Antecedent and consequent will
Mercy t the elect and common grace	Two forms of mercy
One predestination to life (and reprobation)	Two forms of predestination
One covenant of grace for Fall	Two covenants, legal and gracious
One divine intention throughout	Two intentions

Canon VI: Wherefore, we can not agree with the opinion of those who teach: l) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire, determine the salvation of all, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe, 2) that he appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3) that, at length, certain ones whom he regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, he elected, that is, he determined graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act election properly so called is complete. For these and all other similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God’s purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the, heavens does whatsoever he will (Ps 115:3; Isa 47:10); for God is in finitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterises inefficacious affections and desires, rashness repentance and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken away, proceeds from one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election.

—J. H. Heidegger, Francis Turretin, Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675)

4. Four comments

Too often Amyraut has been criticised for the likely consequences of his teaching rather than the teaching itself. Defenders of Amyraut usually argue that he is the true Calvinist.

1 Hypothetical decree

This is an expression of the universal goodness of God. The goodness of God is preserved at the expense of his soveregnty being undermined.

Nothing is gained by a hypothetical decree. It contradicts John 17. Further, of God foreknew man's sin and determined only to save some how does the hypothetical decree help? More, how can there be contradicting intentions in God?

2 The work of Christ

The strong link between redemption accomplished and applied is broken. The doctrine of union with Christ is undermined.

Robert Reymond

The upshot of the Amyraldian arrangement is that the actual execution of the divine discrimination comes not at the point of Christ's redemptive accomplishment which is universal in intent but at the point of the Spirit's redemptive application which is limited to the elect.

3. The gospel mandate

Preaching the gospel is made difficult.

4. Trinitarian questions

Despite what Amyraldians says there is a deficit. Robert Letham says

The electing purpose of the Father and the work of the Spirit are in conflict with the intention in the death of the Son on the cross. This is contrary to the simplicity of the gospel.

We need to understand the all passages in light of it meaning not just Israel, the Jews, but a much wider category of people. It is the movement from centripetal to centrifugal.

Oneism rules today. This makes limited atonement and the gospel itself scandalous. It is more counter-cultural than ever but that is its genius.