# Amyraut



## JM (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm looking for quotations from Amyraut. After doing a search on this forum I wasn't able to find one, but did find comments about how it is "a road to Rome" etc. Using Google I found the Amyraldian Assoc. in the UK and asked them to describe what they believe, I read through some of there material. I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between what Dabney and Shedd taught concerning the atonement, what Calvin has to say about key passages such as JN3:16 and what Amyraut and modern Amyraldians believe.

Can someone help a brother out?

JM
[don't worry, I'm a supra-man, it's just a study]


----------



## JM (Jan 18, 2007)

PS: Wasn't Moise Amyraut tried and found not guilty of false teaching because he used the Canons of Dort to defend his positions?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2007)

This blog post summarizes Robert Reymond's summary of Amyraldianism, specifically the manner in which the composition of the logical order of the divine decree differs from classic Reformed orthodoxy.

http://blog.solagratia.org/2005/12/13/a-brief-consideration-of-amyraldianism/

By switching points 3 & 4, one moves from infralapsarian-Refomed (in which the decree to redeem--infra pt. 4--also gets narrowed to the elect, infra pt. 3) to Amyraldianism, so outlined in the blog post. This is known technically as hypothetical universalism, because it posits a _willed_ atonement for the non-elect that is simply not applied/made efficient.

The difference is significant, for the discussion of the decree of God bears directly upon his will. In addition, there is the matter of Christ's intercessory work--he intercedes for those for whom he came to die. The orthodox Reformed have consistently affirmed that the death of Christ, considered in itself, was _more than enough_ (being infinite in value) to have atoned for all sin. This is not hypothetical universalism, but the question of sufficiency: when the sacrifice alone is in view.

But this can only be a preliminary step to consideration of the whole matter. The benefit (which includes salvation _in toto,_ from election through glorification, the entire _ordo_) belongs to those for whom it was intended (by will), namely the elect, hence efficient for them.

Intercession: Those Christ came to die for he intecedes for. He didn't die for the non-elect therefore he doesn't intercede for them. Try putting the non-elect in there: Christ dies for everyone, he intercedes for everyone he dies for, therefore Christ intercedes for the non-elect?!? It doesn't work. "To all whom thou [Father] hast given him [Son], he should give eternal life... I pray *not* for the world, but for those those whom thou hast given me" (Jn. 17:2, 9).


You can find threads dealing with this general subject in the "Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace" forum, e.g. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=15422


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 19, 2007)

Jason,

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I'm pretty sure that Shedd was a New-Schooler so some of his views were a little _off _ from Old-School Presbyterianism.


----------



## JM (Jan 19, 2007)

Thanks Rev. Buchanan, Mr. Fox. 

But what you posted is even more confusing. Amyraut never placed the decrees of God in any order, the order attributed to Amyraut was never written by Amyraut. The idea of “4-point Calvinism” is also a very odd way to describe Amyraut’s theology, that’s probably more in line with the Dispensational version of Calvinism but not Amyrault’s or the view of the Amyraldian Association. I recently asked about how Amyraldians defined the TULIP and received the following.



> We affirm completely the following Dort articles under redemption, and specifically comments like these:
> 
> 2:2: Since, therefore, we are unable to make that satisfaction in our
> own persons, or to deliver ourselves from the wrath of God, He has been pleased of His infinite mercy to give His only begotten Son for our Surety, who was made sin, and became a curse for us and in our stead, that He might make satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf.
> ...




This was interested:



> Aparently Testard, Amyraut's college, affirmed some ordering, but its
> clear Amyraut himself didnt. I read that about Testard in a dissertation
> by Grohman... which reminds me... but later. Grohman does acknowledge
> that Amyraut denied any ordering etc.



As far as I can tell, Amyraut refused to define the order of salvation and left it more like Calvin, a mystery in the mind of God. 

This as well:



> "distinct decrees in the council of God, the first of
> which is to save all men, through Jesus Christ, if they shall believe in
> him, the second to give faith unto some particular persons, Amyraud,
> along with Testard, declared, "that they did this upon no other account
> ...



As for the new Schooler, what does that mean? Does that mean they were influenced by Finey?



> In particular, Calvin cautioned that this principle must be applied in any consideration of the decree of election; it can be a source of consolation only if man begins with faith rather than the counsel of God. He says:
> The election of God will be a fatal labyrinth for anyone who does not follow the clear road of faith. Thus, so that we may be confident of remission of sins, so that our consciences may rest in full confidence of eternal life, so that we may boldly call God our Father, under no circumstances must we begin by asking what God decreed concerning us before the world began. Rather we must begin by seeking what through His paternal love He has revealed to us through the Gospel. We must seek nothing more profound than that we become the sons of God.
> 
> Amyraut considered the orthodox doctrine of predestination, with all its speculation about the order of God’s decrees, an outright denial of this principle, and constantly called on Calvin in his desire to correct this orthodox tendency. Concerning the ordering of the decrees he makes the following incisive judgment:
> ...



The above quotes were taken from a yahoo group on Amyraldianism, written by Amyraldians and a blog written by Amyraldians. 

As far as I can tell Dabney and Shedd would differ in the way they express depravity of man. Most of what I've read about Amyraldianism is based on a the false idea of what Amyraut taught about the decrees of God, but even infra can be seen as "electing only after the fall" or electing because of the fall as the extra-high Calvinist would claim. [extra high in place of hyper  ]

Thanks again, I’ll keep studying this issue.

~JM~
PS: Thanks for the link to the blog.


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 19, 2007)

JM said:


> As for the new Schooler, what does that mean? Does that mean they were influenced by Finey?



http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/newschoo.htm


> New School Theology
> Advanced Information
> 
> New School Presbyterianism embodied mainstream evangelical Christianity in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. Its modified Calvinist theology, enthusiasm for revivalism, moral reform, and interdenominational cooperation were its most notable characteristics.
> ...


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 19, 2007)

One should also be aware that the logical outcome of Amyraldianism is the neonomian heresy.


----------



## JM (Jan 19, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> One should also be aware that the logical outcome of Amyraldianism is the neonomian heresy.



One should be aware of extremes in any theology...  but I'll bit, how so? Explain brother.

Peace,

~JM~


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 19, 2007)

What good does it do to read Amyraut today, by himself alone, in order supposedly to understand him better? All this does is make him to be read anachronistically in our own context, which removes him from the questions and currents of his own day. I am all for reading primary sources (especially the immediate preceding generations (16th cent) of Reformers!), but that means reading a man in his historical context. The contemporaneous opponents to Amyraut need to be read as well, such as Spanheim, Rivet, du Moulin.

Then read modern history scholars who have read even more widely than that, and study their arguments concerning the nature, meaning, and outcome of the historic debate--men like Roger Nicole, Paul Helm, or even Torrance (from the other side) and test their conclusions.


I consider 'avoiding *all* discussion of the order of decree' a matter of conveneince for those who don't like the divisions it creates among believers. In other words,, I may accept the principle that there is a single infinite decree; but I don't use that as an excuse to weasel out of a discussion of the _order_ of the decree, because WE aren't GOD, and we have to "complicate" (i.e. partition) the simple decree in order for us to comprehend what's going on.

Its a cop-out to eschew the discussion. If the Bible gives us the data, then we need to study it, and break it down if we can. Now a guy like Dabney had a point to make, and I respect that. He thought that the biblical data was not clear enough to settle the lapsarian question, supra-v.infra, and it shouldn't have been raised to the level of a big argument that had people who should have been on the same side poking the other's eye out, and calling them sub-Reformed.

Is the same thing true of Amyraut? Is this another issue that people who belong on the same team are wrongly getting bent over? Are/Were men wrongly taken to court over this issue? I think not, and I think Dabney or Shedd wouldn't be on their side in the discussion--in fact I know so; see their comments _contra_ the School of Saumur, the avowed heirs of Professor Amyraut's tradition: Dabney, ST, pp235f & 519ff; Shedd, DT (P&R ed.), pp. 350f & 742ff. In short, if Amyraldians are co-heirs of Calvin with the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy, why not the Remonstrants also?

This always happens when people are standing close to the line when the line is drawn. Those outside it tend to insist that it should have been drawn a little wider, to include them too. But the fact is that it wasn't, and it becomes a matter of church history. Amyrault and Amyraldians are always going to be close-cousins to the Reformed world, standing partway between the Confessions and the Remonstrants, but the fact is they've already defined themselves by their stance.


A statement by Shedd: "Atonement is unlimited," cannot be separated from what follows, when describing his position on the Atonement: "and redemption is limited" (DT, 743). He goes on: "the sacrifice of Christ is _unlimited_ in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but _limited_ in its effectual application." Furthermore, "Although Christ's atonement, *in the discussion of its value and sufficiency*, can be separated from the intention to apply it, yet in the divine mind and decree _the two are inseparable_.... in the covenant between the Father and the Son, the making of an atonement was inseparably connected with the purpose to apply it.... this sacrifice should be appropriated through faith by a definite number of the human family, so that it might be said that Christ died for *this number* with the *distinct intention* that they should be personally saved by this death" (DT, 746). The gulf separating Shedd from Amyrault is unbridgeable: between indefinite and definite, between general and personal.

The Amyraldian position (especially since it eagerly eschews discussing order in the decree!) is evidently not a general sufficiency, but a particular benefit for every man--elect and nonelect--an atonement or redemption _in particular and personal_ for every man. Christ died, in Amyraut's words: "equally for all men." Nothing can be clearer than that he is separating the *intent* of Christ's sacrifice from (and _prioritizing_ relative to) the *intent* of election (and salvation in toto).

As for the claim that Amyraldianism or HyperCalvinism are the two exclusive poles, around which one or the other all other "mediating positions" must find their orbit--Nicole's _Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement_ contains an excellent rebuttal to the idea that a universal atonement is the only sufficient basis for a universal call of the gospel. Rather, both positions represent deviations left and right from the mean.


----------



## JM (Jan 19, 2007)

Thanks for the reply. 



> What good does it do to read Amyraut today, by himself alone, in order supposedly to understand him better? All this does is make him to be read anachronistically in our own context, which removes him from the questions and currents of his own day. I am all for reading primary sources (especially the immediate preceding generations (16th cent) of Reformers!), but that means reading a man in his historical context. The contemporaneous opponents to Amyraut need to be read as well, such as Spanheim, Rivet, du Moulin.



Would these folks be the same ones that had him tried for heresy which he was latter found not guilty? I'd need more information about the heresy trail but from what I've read he defended himself based on the canons of Dort, so would the 16th century critics of Amyraut be a valid starting point? I agree that we should study this topic from within context of both contemporary sources of the times and modern sources, which is what I’m trying to do. It’s difficult studying this topic because Amyraldianism seems to be misrepresented either by Amyraldians or infra’s and supralapsarians. The Amyraldians I’ve been reading and made contact with seems to offer a different form of Amyraldianism then what I’ve found being critiqued by modern scholars. 



> Then read modern history scholars who have read even more widely than that, and study their arguments concerning the nature, meaning, and outcome of the historic debate--men like Roger Nicole, Paul Helm, or even Torrance (from the other side) and test their conclusions.



I’ve read bits and pieces of rebuttals to Helm and sorted through more bits and pieces of Nicole and bits and pieces from pro-Amyraldians such as “Calvinism and the Amyraut Hersey” but I’m working with limited information. 



> I consider 'avoiding all discussion of the order of decree' a matter of conveneince for those who don't like the divisions it creates among believers. In other words,, I may accept the principle that there is a single infinite decree; but I don't use that as an excuse to weasel out of a discussion of the order of the decree, because WE aren't GOD, and we have to "complicate" (i.e. partition) the simple decree in order for us to comprehend what's going on.



I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic, I don’t think Amyraldians are trying to avoid division, Amyraldianism causes a division by itself. The idea of a single decree is soothing in many ways…but I’m still a supra who sits with his legs dangling on the “hyper” Calvinist side of the fence. 



> Its a cop-out to eschew the discussion. If the Bible gives us the data, then we need to study it, and break it down if we can. Now a guy like Dabney had a point to make, and I respect that. He thought that the biblical data was not clear enough to settle the lapsarian question, supra-v.infra, and it shouldn't have been raised to the level of a big argument that had people who should have been on the same side poking the other's eye out, and calling them sub-Reformed.



Many times I think we engage in needless theological hair splitting…but Dabney’s view of limited atonement is the same as what Amyraldians teach and believe.



> Is the same thing true of Amyraut? Is this another issue that people who belong on the same team are wrongly getting bent over? Are/Were men wrongly taken to court over this issue? I think not, and I think Dabney or Shedd wouldn't be on their side in the discussion--in fact I know so; see their comments contra the School of Saumur, the avowed heirs of Professor Amyraut's tradition: Dabney, ST, pp235f; Shedd, DT (P&R ed.), pp. 350f & 742ff. In short, if Amyraldians are co-heirs of Calvin with the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy, why not the Remonstrants also?



Dabney and Shedd both denied Amyraldianism but then taught limited atonement in the same breath and spirit. 



> This always happens when people are standing close to the line when the line is drawn. Those outside it tend to insist that it should have been drawn a little wider, to include them too. But the fact is that it wasn't, and it becomes a matter of church history. Amyrault and Amyraldians are always going to be close-cousins to the Reformed world, standing partway between the Confessions and the Remonstrants, but the fact is they've already defined themselves by their stance.



Still reading, still researching and always considering what you post Reverend. I do enjoy your posts very much and learn from them. This forum is a blessing in many ways.



> A statement by Shedd: "Atonement is unlimited," cannot be separated from what follows, when describing his position on the Atonement: "and redemption is limited" (DT, 743). He goes on: "the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application." Furthermore, "Although Christ's atonement, in the discussion of its value and sufficiency, can be separated from the intention to apply it, yet in the divine mind and decree the two are inseparable.... in the covenant between the Father and the Son, the making of an atonement was inseparably connected with the purpose to apply it.... this sacrifice should be appropriated through faith by a definite number of the human family, so that it might be said that Christ died for this number with the distinct intention that they should be personally saved by this death" (DT, 746). The gulf separating Shedd from Amyrault is unbridgeable: between indefinite and definite, between general and personal.



That’s what Amyraldians believe. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm#l
http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/
http://controversialcalvinism.blogspot.com/



> The Amyraldian position (especially since it eagerly eschews discussing order in the decree!) is evidently not a general sufficiency, but a particular benefit for every man--elect and nonelect--an atonement or redemption in particular and personal for every man. Christ died, in Amyraut's words: "equally for all men." Nothing can be clearer than that he is separating the intent of Christ's sacrifice from (and prioritizing relative to) the intent of election (and salvation in toto).



For [by Christ's death] we know that by the expiation of sins the world has been reconciled to God...Comment on John 17: 1

The draught appointed to Christ was to suffer the death of the cross for the reconciliation of the world. Comment on John 18: 11

It is not enough to regard Christ as having died for the salvation of the world; each man must claim the effect and possession of this grace for himself personally. Comment on Galatians 2: 20

He says that this redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Comment on Colossians 1: 14

I likewise declare that, according to the measure of grace and 
goodness which the Lord hath employed towards me I have endeavored, both in my sermons and also in my writings and commentaries, to preach His Word purely and chastely, and faithfully to interpret His sacred Scriptures. 

And from the same document: 

I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him that he may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under his shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat. Calvin's Last Will and Testament



> As for the claim that Amyraldianism or HyperCalvinism are the two exclusive poles, around which one or the other all other "mediating positions" must find their orbit--Nicole's Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement contains an excellent rebuttal to the idea that a universal atonement is the only sufficient basis for a universal call of the gospel. Rather, both positions represent deviations left and right from the mean.



Still reading, still studying, still Reforming.

Peace,

~JM~


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jan 19, 2007)

Curt Daniel has a lecture on the events and doctrines of Amyraut which explains why he got off easy on the heresy trial( at least one of the trials he was brought to was led by an Amyraldian ). Dr. Daniel has apparently read a good deal of Amyraut's works and seems inclined that way himself.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 20, 2007)

Amyraut was the analogous "FV proponent" of his era, "tweaking" the doctrines enough to make a point, by trying to remain in good, orthodox standing. Dr. Clark has observed a similar thing about the Remonstrants, and even ancient heretics and schismatics. "You don't understand what you're critiquing," is a mantra with a very long pedigree.

While its possible to conclude that theologians of the calibre of Dabney and Shedd were ill-informed and unread as to the substance of Amyraut and the Amyraldians, and so contradicted themselves in the same breath, personally I'm more inclined to think that they were clear on the distinctions and nuances between what they taught, and the Saumur theology they understood. Its simply too incredible to me: the notion that this was some common confusion of scholars blythely parrotting propaganda they'd been fed by their own teachers, in generational regression, never bothering with source material. Does Dabney's Syllabus (beginning of chapter) include readings from Amyraut himself? (_edit: looking, I did not find it there_). I'd say, if modern "Amyraldians" agree with Shedd, then they aren't Amyraldians, or else they are misreading Shedd to make an Amyraldian out of him.

Jason, the end quotes/refs in your post--are they all Calvin? Obviously some are, but that's really beside the point anyway. Calvin affirms sufficient/efficient distinction--and Amyraut's view and his modern advocates say more than that. Again, the difference is between a general and a specific provision, which is where Amyraut claimed to be Calvin's faithful follower. But he glosses over practically anything Calvin said that contradicts his thesis, particularly in works of theology (as opposed to exposition) that bear directly upon the issue. Besides which Calvin in at least one place stated bluntly that Christ *did not shed his blood for the wicked.* So, regardless of where one arrives on the subject of Calvin, some method of reconciling his statments must be made (unless one wants to make a muddled neo-orthodox theologian out of him). 

Rev. Winzer (armourbearer) has written here at the PB on the centrality of the issue if _intent_ to the Reformed discussion and conclusions (as embodied in the Confessions) of the 16th and 17th centuries. The matter of divine intention re. the redemptive work of Christ (and the synchronicity of the Trinity in redemption) is where the two sides face off. Is the work of Christ on behalf of every person on earth exactly the same, intentionally ONE, and its application to the elect a subsidiary resultant intention, a conditional decree? That is Amyrault.

God bless your studies.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 20, 2007)

JM said:


> One should be aware of extremes in any theology...  but I'll bit, how so? Explain brother.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> ~JM~



Because if Christ died for all and his death was effectual then the only logical conclusion is that now people do not go to hell for sin but for rejecting Christ.


----------



## JM (Jan 20, 2007)

> Jason, the end quotes/refs in your post--are they all Calvin? Obviously some are, but that's really beside the point anyway. Calvin affirms sufficient/efficient distinction--and Amyraut's view and his modern advocates say more than that. Again, the difference is between a general and a specific provision, which is where Amyraut claimed to be Calvin's faithful follower. But he glosses over practically anything Calvin said that contradicts his thesis, particularly in works of theology (as opposed to exposition) that bear directly upon the issue. Besides which Calvin in at least one place stated bluntly that Christ did not shed his blood for the wicked. So, regardless of where one arrives on the subject of Calvin, some method of reconciling his statments must be made (unless one wants to make a muddled neo-orthodox theologian out of him).



Ahhhhhh, now this is something for me to bite into! I'm off to read more about this topic, thanks folks.

God bless,

jason
PS: Leadbelly isn't frightening anyone, is he? lol


----------



## JOwen (Jan 20, 2007)

Some may find this conference of intrest.
http://www10.asphost4free.com/nrchurch/nrc.html

amyraldian association lectures in mp3.


----------



## JM (Jan 20, 2007)

JOwen said:


> Some may find this conference of intrest.
> http://www10.asphost4free.com/nrchurch/nrc.html
> 
> amyraldian association lectures in mp3.



That's one of the sites I was referring to. They [Amyraldians] seem to agree with Dabney and Shedd on the "L" and deny the common Reformed understanding of what Amyraldianism is or teaches. 



> We hold to the classic Lombardian construction of the sufficiency-efficiency formula which says that Christ suffered, redeemed, made ransom, for all men sufficiently, but that he suffered, redeemed, made ransom, for all the elect efficiently.



What is a "classic Lombardian construction?"

A few quotations from a website blog.

"The Lord made to meet on him, as an expiatory sacrifice, not one or another or most sins of one or other man, but all the iniquities of all of us. Therefore I say, the sins of all men of the world of all ages have been expiated by his death."

Bullinger, Isaiah, p.266b, sermon 151. Cited in G. Michael Thomas' The Extent of the Atonement: A dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus 1536- 1675 (Paternoster Publishing, 1997), p. 75.

Samuel Rutherford, a man who was a HIGH Calvinist, apparently said the following while preaching from Song of Solomon 2:14:

"It is ordinary for man to beg from God, for we be but His beggars; but it is a miracle to see God beg at man. Yet here is the Potter begging from the clay; the Savior seeking from sinners!"


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 20, 2007)

*Amyraldianism*

Hay JM:

Would this be a good definition of Amyraldianism?

Amyraldians, however, place divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. It is also known, perhaps more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism. According to B. B. Warfield, "it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism," (Plan, p. 98). 

This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe. ... the primary characteristic of the Amyraldian scheme is the placement of election after the atonement. However, opponents contend that Scripture indicates Christ came in order to execute the purpose of election. He came to die for and give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him. See John 10:15 and 17:2, 9. If this point is true, then the decree to elect some of mankind should necessarily precede the decree to provide an atonement. The Amyraldian scheme assumes the reverse to be true. - Source Theopedia

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 20, 2007)

JM said:


> "The Lord made to meet on him, as an expiatory sacrifice, not one or another or most sins of one or other man, but all the iniquities of all of us. Therefore I say, the sins of all men of the world of all ages have been expiated by his death."
> 
> Bullinger, Isaiah, p.266b, sermon 151. Cited in G. Michael Thomas' The Extent of the Atonement: A dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus 1536- 1675 (Paternoster Publishing, 1997), p. 75.



Was Bullinger not addressing this to Christians?


----------



## JM (Jan 20, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay JM:
> 
> Would this be a good definition of Amyraldianism?
> 
> ...



#1 I don't think so, the Rev. mentioned in a post about "one decree" that would pretty much cover all the ordering of God's decrees [the fall, election, etc.] with one absolute decree. The Amyraldian blogs that I've read do not offer any ordering of the decrees, but it seems this is where the critics have focused. 

#2 This would be false. Amyraldians believe Christ died to save the elect and the elect only. The atonement is limited in this sense. 



> Was Bullinger not addressing this to Christians?



I would assume so, but I don't have a context to go with that quote, sorry.

I'll have to bow out of this thread my well of Amyraldian information has just dried up!  Sorry folks.

~JM~


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 20, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Was Bullinger not addressing this to Christians?



Even if he was, the final sentence reads prima-facie ("all men of all the world in all ages") as if speaking of universal expiation.

The more pertinent question would be, does Christ thus the same unto all men? Is this a general statement, or was the sin (for example) of Judas, the son of perdition destined to certain damnation, specifically the selling of Christ to his murderers for 30 silvers--is it proper to speak of *that* sin as though it had been expiated?

It is a principle of logic, however, that what may be predicated of the whole, is not necessarily predicable of each part considered alone.

See also Bullinger, Decades (iv.v), where redemption and intercession are inseparably conjoined as "both parts of reconcilliation (or atonement)" --p 214, all original wording.

And (iv.i), "'The blood of the Son of God doth cleanse us from all sin [here refuting that original sin only is cleansed, BGB]. For he is the propitiation for our sins; not for our sins only, but for the sins of all the world.' Therefore the merit of Christ his redemption doth extend itself to all the *faithful* of both the testaments" [here refuting that the OT saints or any others were justified by law] --p. 43.

And (i.ix), "Moreover, it is not the sins of a few men, of one or two ages, or a few and certain number of sins are forgiven only; but the sins of all men, of all ages, the whole multitude of sins, whatsoever is and is called sin, whether it be original, or actual, or any other else; to be short, all sins are forgiven *us*. Which we do hereby learn, because the only sacrifice of Christ is effectual enough to wash away all the offences of all sinners, *which by faith* come to the mercy-seat of God's grace.... Wherefore it is assuredly true, that by the death of Christ all sins are forgiven *them that believe.*" --pp165-66.

Moreover, if one reads the 2nd Helvitic Confession, which was Bullinger's personal confession, published by Frederick III for a defense of the Reformed Faith, one will look in vain for support for universal redemption. And he treats logically of predestination and election (X.) prior to his treatment of Christ the Savior of the World (XI.) See especially paras 16 & 17 of the latter, in which one would expect to find _anything at all_ of such a belief were it there. There is nothing, not a hint. It is "the faithful" alone for whom Christ is given in everything.


----------



## Machaira (Jan 20, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay JM:
> 
> Would this be a good definition of Amyraldianism . . ?






JM said:


> #1 I don't think so, the Rev. mentioned in a post about "one decree" that would pretty much cover all the ordering of God's decrees [the fall, election, etc.] with one absolute decree.



While Amyraut didn't like to speak in terms of multiple decrees, according to Dr. Curt Daniel, (for what it's worth), he did condescend to do so in order to explain his position. You can hear this at the following link:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/histtheocalvin.html 

Just scroll down to "Amyraldism." The comments in question are about 15 minutes into the lecture.


----------



## JM (Jan 20, 2007)

Machaira said:


> While Amyraut didn't like to speak in terms of multiple decrees, according to Dr. Curt Daniel, (for what it's worth), he did condescend to do so in order to explain his position. You can hear this at the following link:
> 
> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/histtheocalvin.html
> 
> Just scroll down to "Amyraldism." The comments in question are about 15 minutes into the lecture.



Should I read Norm Geisler to understand James White? It seems Amyraut did not agree on the ordering of decrees, I posted a few quotes on 01-19-2007 05:22 PM. I can't build a hill and die on it, but it seems those who attack the Amyraldian position, seem to attack the decrees as the starting point...the ordering of decrees, as far as I can tell have yet to be established from Amyraldian sources, only critical. 

I'll have a listen it.

Peace,

~JM~


----------



## Machaira (Jan 20, 2007)

JM said:


> Should I read Norm Geisler to understand James White? It seems Amyraut did not agree on the ordering of decrees . . .



That's exactly the point made by Dr. Daniel. This is where Amyraut gets the notion of "hypothetical universalism." Take a listen.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 20, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> Jason,
> 
> I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but I'm pretty sure that Shedd was a New-Schooler so some of his views were a little _off _ from Old-School Presbyterianism.



I'm pretty sure Shedd was an Old Schooler. He succeeded Gardiner Spring as pastor of Brick Church in NYC prior to the Old School-New School reunion.


----------



## JM (Jan 24, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> Curt Daniel has a lecture on the events and doctrines of Amyraut which explains why he got off easy on the heresy trial( at least one of the trials he was brought to was led by an Amyraldian ). Dr. Daniel has apparently read a good deal of Amyraut's works and seems inclined that way himself.



Great lecture! But Daniel's seems to be saying that Calvin believed in a dual atonement...just like Amyraut...42min.


----------

