# Puritan/Scottish Amyraldists or Hypothetical Universalists?



## thistle93 (Jul 7, 2014)

Hi! I am looking for the names of all the Puritans and Scottish pastors/theologians of the past who believed in to Amyraldism or Hypothetical Universalism (those who denied definite atonement)? 

If you read non-reformed or 4 pointer writings they seem to think the list is quite large and that those who held to definite atonement where all just high calvinist (not a complement). I think many are trying to make 4 point calvinism the norm, though when you dig deeper, many who claim to be 4 pointers actually do not truely believe in the other 4 points. 

Thank you! 

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## KeithW (Jul 7, 2014)

I didn't know what the term meant so checked Amyraldism - Wikipedia. It lists some people. Maybe the references will have more.

If the article is correct in explaining this viewpoint, the issue seems to start with a difference in opinion on what total depravity is, not just definite/particular atonement. So there is one of the other 4 points you mentioned.


----------



## MW (Jul 7, 2014)

Amyraldism is not really four point Calvinism. In essence it held to all five points but introduced an hypothetical universalism which radically alters the way each point is understood.

There is no single taxonomy, especially in recent studies. If one is looking for a staunch Calvinist classification then Theophilus Gale's Court of the Gentiles uses the neutral definition, "New Methodists," and includes within it Cameron, Baronius and Strang from Scotland. He regarded Ussher and Davenant as inclining towards it but still basically orthodox.

There has been a tendency in historical research to identify any "universal reference" with a denial of particular redemption. This fails to account for nuances in teaching. "Sufficient for all" was a popularly accepted term with a variety of explanations. Many who held to particular redemption understood the sufficiency of the death of Christ in terms of an ability to save all men if God had so chosen. When they are enlisted on the side of those who deny particular redemption there is obviously a fault in classification.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jul 7, 2014)

If it is of interest, Cunningham gives a long paragraph, though brief, on the historical development of the "sufficient for all" idea on p. 332 of his Historical Theology here:

https://archive.org/stream/workscunn03cunn#page/332/mode/2up


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 6, 2014)

thistle93 said:


> Hi! I am looking for the names of all the Puritans and Scottish pastors/theologians of the past who believed in to Amyraldism or Hypothetical Universalism (those who denied definite atonement)?



Did not the Marrow Men hold to a form of Hypothetical Universalism in the Atonement also, without denying definite atonement though, is not the term Hypothetical Universalism used by those like the Marrow men who held all 5 points.

If you denied limited/definite Atonement you would hold to Universal or Unlimited Atonement _not_ Hypothetical Universalism, would you not.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 6, 2014)

This is from A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology, Chapter 25,The Atonement: its Nature, Necessity, Perfection, and Extent, The Design of the Atonement:

*19.What was the doctrine of the "Marrow Men" in Scotland?*

The "Marrow of Modern Divinity" was published in England, 1646, and republished in Scotland by James Hog of Carnock, 1726. The "Marrow Men" were Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, and their followers in the Secession Church. 
They were perfectly orthodox with respect to the reference of the atonement to the elect. Their peculiarity was that they emphasized the general reference of the atonement to all men. They said Christ did not die for all, but he is dead for all, i. e., available. "God made a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all men." They distinguished between his "giving love," which was universal, and his "electing love," which was special ("Marrow of Mod. Divinity"). Dr.John Brown said before the synod of the United Secession Church, 1845, "In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men" 
("Hist. of Atonement Controversy in Secess. Church," by Rev. And. Robertson).

*20.State the doctrine of Amyraldus of the French School of Saumur, and of Baxter in England.*

This scheme of Hypothetical or Conditional Universalism holds that God gave his Son to die in order to provide redemption for all men indiscriminately, suspending its actual enjoyment upon their free appropriation of it. At the same time he sovereignly wills to give the effectual grace which determines that free self–appropriation only to the elect. The ordinary Calvinistic doctrine logically makes the decree to provide redemption the means to carry into effect the decree of election. The French and Baxterian view makes the decree of election the means of carrying into effect so far forth the general purpose of redemption 
(See "Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ," by Richard Baxter. Answered by John Owen in his "Death of Christ," etc.). These "Novelties" were explained away before the French Synod, 1637, and virtually condemned.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2014)

Another book worth reading on this subject is Jonathan Moore's book on John Preston.


----------



## Cymro (Aug 6, 2014)

The Rev Glaser has drawn attention to Jonathan Moore. His lecture to the Begg society
is very informative, and surprising regarding the source of Hypothetical Universalism,
which he traces to the influence of Archbishop Usher upon the Puritans. I believe it can 
be found on line. He does make a distinction between Amyraldianism and Hypothetical
Universalism. Another source is a book by Rev Ian Hamilton, the title of which escapes 
me at the moment, but it is something like, The Decline of Calvinism in the Scottish 
Church. Again ,very informative.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2014)

This is the book you are referencing Jeff, thanks for calling attention to it. 

CFP | The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Drifting from the Truth in confessional Scottish Churches | Ian Hamilton


----------

