Questions on Amyraldism

[Mr. Bultitude]

Is the description of Amyraldism on this page accurate? That is, is Amyraldism primarily a statement on the order of the decrees which can be contrasted with supra- and infralapsarianism (and is Johnson's ordering of the decrees in each system accurate)?

If so, then two other questions come up for me. Is there anything in the Westminster Standards contradicting Amyraldism, or even outright condemning it? In what way does the Amyraldism described at the link deny limited atonement? (That's the key question for me.)

I may have follow-up questions depending on the replies. Thanks!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The key to identifying Amyraldianism's defect is in its severing the intent of the Atonement from the application and effect of it.

By dividing the intent of the Atonement--as though God intended by it to save some for whom it was given (as means to end of salvation for them), but not all for whom it was given (given for a different intention)--Amyrault has made the Atonement only partially effective; it avails not for everyone for whom it was given, since it is applied differently according to election.

The result is an Atonement that cannot assure anyone who understands it. It attempts to bridge the (unfortunate) gap between the Reformed and the Lutherans--who believe in a universal Atonement that is not personally effective in the end (heaven & hell) for all for whom it is given.

--Lutherans believe the Atonement was effective in that it really did atone for all the sins of the whole world.
--They have a doctrine of election, but it is not tied to salvation per se, inasmuch as people who really have salvation can also really lose it.
--The Atonement must be supplemented by the ministry of Word and Sacrament in order to apply it.
**Bullet points can only declare differences between Reformed theology and Lutheran. They cannot replace the study necessary for an internal/sympathetic understanding.​

In the end, Amyraldianism is an unstable half-way house. It cannot deliver the goods; and one is better off resting in Reformed theology, or else becoming a Lutheran. Lutherans believe they alone have the true theology of assurance, because of the "objectivity" of their doctrines (and their studied neglect of election--a doctrine to be acknowledged, but left shrouded in mystery).

The Reformed faith teaches that genuine assurance is a supernatural product, an effect of the indwelling Spirit, whereby we know whom we have believed, and are persuaded that he is able to keep that which we've committed unto him against that day. In other words, assurance is not grounded in "faith" (the instrument) but in Christ, the object of faith. Greater acquaintance with Christ (the Person) and his work leads the believer into greater and greater assurance.

Cracking apart his intention and application for his Atonement doesn't contribute to our assurance, but undermines it.

 

[MW]

The Westminster Confession (3.7) explicitly speaks of "the rest of mankind" as being passed by so far as the purpose of salvation is concerned, so it effectively shuts out the Amyraldian scheme of an hypothetical salvation for all men. Likewise, the Larger Catechism (answer 59) clearly states that redemption is certainly applied to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it, which denies the Amyraldian contention that there is an hypothetical purchase for those to whom it is not applied.

The chart is basically correct in its presentation of Amyaldism, and it is correct to observe that the order of the decrees is an important area of difference, but it would be incorrect to draw from this that the order of the decrees is all that is at stake. The fact is, there are different views of God's knowledge and will, and ultimately of God's relationship to the creation. Infralapsarians and supralapsarians share in common an opposition to the Amyraldian and Arminian view of a conditional, ineffectual will in God.