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.
