John Frame writes the following:
“It is a bit surprising that the name of Moise Amyraut (Latin form Amyraldus; hence “Amyraldianism”) is not better known in a time such as ours when so many evangelical Christians want to be known as “four point Calvinists.” Many, indeed, in our time seem to want to say (a) that Christ atoned in some sense for the sins of every human being, (b) that nevertheless all men are not saved, and (c) that in the final analysis it is God, not man, who determines what persons shall be saved and which ones lost. But making these propositions work together in a Scripturally and logically cogent way is a task requiring considerable subtlety of mind, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever done it better than Amyraut. Further, Amyraut wove these propositions into the context of a rather distinctive theological approach—a method, emphasis, and style significantly different from those of other theologians of his time (1596–1664). I suspect that the appeal of “four point Calvinism” even today can be best understood by reference to Amyraut’s general theological mentality—a mentality shared to some extent by many today who know little of Amyraut. Thus, both proponents and critics of the “four point” position can benefit from a study of Amyraut’s theology and approach to theology”
It’s been quite interesting to do a little bit of reading about Amyraldianism over the last couple of weeks. Here’s a few things I’ve discovered:
- There are different streams of “Hypothetical Universalism” in 17th century thought (Cameron, Testard, Amyrald).
- Francis Turretin, who famously opposed them, saw them as “our ministers” and thus not outside of Reformed orthodoxy like Roman Catholicism or Arminianism.
- It is a form of Covenant Theology.
- It utilises separate Antecedant & Consequent wills, rather than Calvin’s one will, with 2 aspects: Secret/Revealed. That is, a scholastic distinction between separate wills or decrees. Amyraut sees a hypothetical universal decree to save all upon the condition of faith, and an absolute decree to grant faith. The former is antecedant to the decree of Christ’s death. The latter is consequent to it. Calvin on the other hand saw that God’s will was simple and one. And yet it had two aspects: the Secret aspect pertaining to God’s chosen individuals, and the Revealed aspect pertaining to the universal Gospel call.
Basically, Amyraldianism has to do with a re-ordering of the divine decrees, and the insertion of a hypothetically universal decree of salvation. Let me explain:
In Eternity, there is an antecedent hypothetical decree for the universal salvation of all on condition of their faith. Logically next, Christ is decreed to die with that intention. But, logically next – God, foreseeing that nobody would be saved due to total depravity created a consequent decree to grant faith to a particular number. Do you see how the granting of faith in the consequent will fulfills the condition of the antecedent will? That’s the logic of Amyraldianism. I think it’s quite brilliant, actually.
Amyraldus (according to Mark Thompson, the Latinised versions of names were in vogue back then!) wrote the following in his Brief Traitte. See how it pertains to the antecedent decree:
“The sacrifice that He has offered for the propitiation of their offenses has been equally for all. And the salvation that He has received from His Father in order to communicate it to men in the sanctification of the spirit and the glorification of the body is destined equally to all, provided, I say, that the disposition necessary in order to receive it is also equally present.”
I’ll post up some of my thoughts on this position soon, but for now – I think it’s at least interesting that Turretin considered Amyraldians “our ministers.” This ought to ease at least some of the tensions between those who hold to Particular Redemption and those who hold to Amyraldianism.
Sorry Mike, but I think there are too many problems with the Amyraldian system of soteriology!