However its proponents wish to deny it, Amyraldianism inevitably leads back in the Arminian direction, which in turn leads back toward the semi-pelagian direction, which in turn leads to pelagianism. Amyraldianism winds up being a completely inconsistent compromise between the synergistic views of Arminianism/Semi-pelagianism and the monergistic theology of Scripture and of the Protestant Reformers...
To be honest, I had not seriously considered the error of the
Amyraldian theology other than the overgeneralized view that it is a four point Calvinist view. Recently, I was drawn into an online debate with two bloggers claiming to be "Calvinist" and "Reformed." However, I found this to be far from the truth, and, in fact, just a replay of the tactics used by the Arminians during the controvery in Holland in the seventeenth century. The tactic I speak of is pretending one is a true Calvinist while at the same time making anachronistic arguments and twisting the context of comments made by Calvin, Bullinger, Zwingli, and other Reformed theologians of the time to make it seem as if they are in fact Amyraldians. This is not only dishonest but the motive and intention is to deceive less informed Calvinists into believing the Amyraldian view.
The fact is the Amyraldian view not only rejects particular atonement, but it also rejects the doctrine of unconditional election. How can this be true you say? Well, since the Amyraldians must insist that God loves all men, including every single individual without exception, they wish to keep the doctrine of unconditional election while at the same time capitulating to the Arminian side by positing a dual election. So instead of an outright rejection of unconditional election, the Amyraldian makes election a dual or double election. Prior to particular election of those who will receive the benefits of the atonement of Christ, the Amyraldian position says that God theoretically elects all men without exception. This is necessary because they insist that Christ loves all men without exception and makes a free offer of salvation to every single individual and so God must have elected all men, including those who are reprobates.
This sort of logic leads to all sorts of confusion and makes God look dishonest and schizophrenic. It also leads to further error, as the Protestant Reformed Church theologians have accurately pointed out. The
Protestant Reformed Churches in America split from the
Christian Reformed Churches of North America in 1924 over the issue of common grace and it seems to me that the CRCNA has gone in a more liberal direction since that time as the historical background page at their website indicates:
After the war the CRC had a difficult time defining itself. It wanted to become American but it also wanted to cling tenaciously to its Reformed beliefs and practices, which many felt could only find full expression in Dutch. This led to disagreements, and, in typical Reformed style, to secession. Calvin Seminary Professor Ralph Janssen left the CRC because of sustained investigations into his views on science as a legitimate source of knowledge that could contribute positively to Christians' understanding of the world. Herman Hoeksema's rejection of "common grace" sparked the secession of the Protestant Reformed Church from the CRC.
The Depression years were difficult for CRC members. The church had spread in pockets throughout the United States. The rigors of survival caused them to look more inward than outward. As a result, they were losing touch with each other and with their roots. Banner editor H.J. Kuiper sounded the alarm, encouraging members to dedicate themselves afresh to the Reformed faith. Kuiper identified three factions in the CRC that we can still identify to some extent today: those who cling tenaciously to historical Calvinism, those who espouse a sort of fundamental evangelicalism, and those who follow behind the liberal, socializing, modernistic churches of North America. (http://www.crcna.org/pages/history_of_crc.cfm).
Unfortunately, Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary of the CRCNA denomination are increasingly siding with theological liberalism. While the Protestant Reformed Churches in America remains a relatively small denomination in the northern midwestern states of Illinois and Michigan, they have at least maintained a solid Calvinist and Reformed witness without caving in to modernism and modern attempts to mediate between Amyraldianism and the Reformed faith, which is essentially what the common grace controversy was all about. Thus, the PRCA stands in a unique position to speak against the modern Amyraldian heresies over against other conservative Reformed denominations here in the United States, which have mostly gone in the direction of common grace. While some might question whether or not the common grace controversy was worth seceding from the CRCNA, hindsight seems to justify the split.
As
Martyn J. McGeown, on the website of the PRCA's sister church in Ireland, the
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church, says, the Gospel is very simple. Christ died on the cross to suffer the penalty of God's wrath against the sinful elect and He suffered in their place as a substitute. So for Arminians and Amyraldians, the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is impossible since Christ does not die for anyone in particular but only for everyone in general. How could Christ pay the penalty for unbelief for those who refuse to believe unless one takes the view that all men in general will be saved? Universalism is obviously a false doctrine.
Quite honestly, I have been attending an Episcopal church where the pastor originally claimed to be "Reformed" in his theology. However, as time went on, I began to suspect something was wrong. Not only did he not understand the doctrine of law and gospel, but his view of law was extremely basic and lacking since he did not understand the distinctions between ceremonial, civil and moral law. Neither did he understand the three uses of the moral law in convicting us as sinners, directing us as to how to live as a Christian, and providing general equity in formulating civil laws for modern societies. It was only later that I discovered that his theology was actually Amyraldian rather than Calvinist/Reformed. Suddenly a light went on, and I understood why he had not spoken about total depravity or made the dichotomy between law and gospel plain in his sermons. Furthermore, I never heard a sermon calling for the conversion of lost sinners.
I for one get extremely irritated when I feel that someone has deliberately tried to deceive or mislead me. I have had enough of that sort of tactic when I was in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement. Honestly, Amyraldians and Arminians are just as deceptive when it comes to their equivocation back and forth about the sovereignty of God and the sovereignty of man. Anyone who thinks seriously about the issue can see that foreknowledge implies predestination and God's eternal decrees, which is why many Arminians today are moving toward
Open Theism.
Amyraldianism is no less deceptive, since it tries to equivocate between Reformed theology and Arminian theology and utterly fails at the attempt. For those who think deeply about this issue it is apparent that the Amyraldian view undermines the doctrine of total depravity, since it postulates a natural ability given to all men so that they have a genuine choice to either accept or reject the free offer of salvation. The problem is that total depravity has rendered men unable to accept the offer since Adam forfeited the spiritual gifts enabling him and his posterity to have the free will necessary to choose only the good and to choose to serve only God. Thus, Adam violated the covenant of works and so does all of his posterity by both original sin and by actual sins. So, man's natural ability has not existed since the fall of Adam. The question for Amyraldians is how can God make a genuine offer of salvation to the reprobate who are unable to have faith? According to the Protestant Reformed theologians, there is a general call to salvation to all men, but only the elect are given faith; thus, there is no genuine offer of salvation given to any of the reprobate. Only the wicked elect are given a genuine offer of salvation, and they are given the gift of faith to enable them to believe and receive the benefits of the atoning death of Jesus Christ.
How can God will the salvation of all as in the "revealed" will of God? Yet, God's "secret" will is that only the elect will actually be saved and redeemed. (See
Deuteronomy 29:29). To argue as the Amyraldians do, that God has redeemed all mankind is schizophrenic and doubleminded since one cannot have it both ways. Actually, it makes more sense to see that God's will is to save all those whom He has predetermined to save as the Gospel of John clearly shows. God has decreed and determined to save only the elect, based solely on His sovereign decision to show mercy to whom He will show mercy! (See
Romans 9:18ff). If God's will is to save literally all, as in every single individual, then we must either conclude that God contradicts Himself or He fails. The only other option would be universal salvation, the option that the neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth opted for.
In his article, "
Amyraldianism and the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) ," Rev. Angus Stewart shows that the Amyraldian views of a hypothetical universal election and a hypothetical universal atonement are not only unbiblical but were condemned by the Canons of Dordt in its positive statements on particular election and particular atonement. Furthermore, even though the synod was not universal, the
Formula Consensus Helvetica in 1675 unequivocally condemned the Amyraldian view as unbiblical and as a departure from Calvin and the other Reformed theologians of the Protestant Reformation. While Amyraldians claim they have not violated the
Canons of Dordt and deceptively claim to be faithful to both Calvin and the Reformed doctrines in the Canons of Dordt, the Formula Consensus Helvetica expressly proves otherwise.
However, its proponents wish to deny it, Amyraldianism inevitably leads back in the Arminian direction, which in turn leads back toward the semi-pelagion direction, which in turn leads to pelagianism. Amyraldianism winds up being a completely inconsistent compromise between the synergistic views of Arminianism/semi-pelagianism and the monergistic theology of Scripture and of the Protestant Reformers:
Amyraut claimed that his views were in accordance with the Word of God, the theology of John Calvin and the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619), to which he as a French Reformed minister subscribed. This also was false as his critics, both then and now, have pointed out. Martin I. Klauber states, “The majority of Reformed theologians … rejected his system as the first step towards Arminianism” (“Theological Transition in Geneva,” in Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark [eds.], Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment [Great Britain: Paternoster, 1999], p. 258, n. 5). The orthodox in the French Reformed Church and outside it called for his discipline, but the French synods failed to deal with the problem properly. The slide of his students, his disciples and the French Reformed Church further and further into Arminianism has been well documented. (Rev. Angus Stewart).
What are the implications of this controversy with the Amyraldians and Arminians in the Dutch Reformed churches, particularly as that relates to worldwide Anglicanism? Unfortunately, those who revel in the brevity of the
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are actually no better than the Anglo-Catholics who twist the articles out of their literal historical/grammatical context and their plain meaning to fit their own agenda. It is obvious that the Calvinist influence in the Church of England was an overwhelming one, especially when we observe the Cromwellian Revolution. However, well before that there were the
Lambeth Articles of 1595. While it is true that a minority of English observers at the Synod of Dordt were sympathetic to the Arminians, it is beyond all doubt that the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion taught double predestination in
Article 17. Both the Lambeth Articles of 1595 and the Thirty-Nine Articles establish only one will of God and one election to grace, not two. Therefore, those who would say that the English Reformers would have sided with the Arminians or the Amyraldians cannot do so without going against the majority view as it is expressed in the official confession and in the Lambeth Articles.
Article 17 clearly rejects any idea of a hypothetical and general election, and, therefore, also excludes interpreting
Article 15, which mentions that Christ died for the sins of the "whole world," as a reference to every single individual. Neither do the Articles in any way refer to any view incorporating an alleged hypothetical atonement applied to all men in general. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion preceded the Amyraldian and the Arminian heresies and cannot therefore teach either of those views.
Perhaps the most devastating evidence against both Arminianism and Amyraldianism is John Calvin himself. When reading the body of his work as a whole it is difficult to see how Arminians and Amryraldians can say that Calvin taught univeral atonement unless they ignore the specific passages in his commentaries where he particularizes his statements regarding a general call to all mankind as a calling out of the elect from among the mass of mankind in general. In other words, there is no genuine offer of salvation made to those who are predestined to reprobation. Since we do not know whom God has elected or reprobated in His eternal decrees, we preach to all within earshot so that the elect may be regenerated and effectually called to salvation. They are perishing and on their way to hell, and God has a favor given only to them such that they are given the gift of faith; and, the atonement is particularly applied to the individuals who are numbered among the elect from before the foundation of the world. The most obvious passage where Calvin disputes any universal atonement being applied to unbelievers is his commentary on 1 John 2:2:
2 And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world. (Commentary on 1 John 2:2).
In light of the above, I fail to understand how Amyraldians can appeal to Calvin's theology to support their case. I could cite numberous other passages where Calvin particularizes the general call to salvation as being offered only to those who will believe, i.e. the elect who will then be effectually called from among the rest of mankind who are reprobate. Not even the elect are able to believe unless they are raised from spiritual death by a direct intervention of God. Thus, salvation is a totally monergistic act of God and is by no means synergistic or a cooperation of man with God. Calvin directly and specifically says that the atonement is NOT for the reprobate, and he says so in the very proof text verse that Arminians and Amyraldians use to prove from Scripture that their view is correct. So, if they are going to quote Calvin out of context in other places, how do they reconcile this direct quote from Calvin's commentary that says without equivocation or ambiguity that Christ did not die for the reprobate? That is a good question, and it remains to be seen if the Amyraldians will ever answer it.
Soli gloria Deo!
Charlie
Addendum:
For those who would contend wrongly that Bishop J. C. Ryle taught a universal atonement I offer his commentary on John 10:10-18....
These verses show us, for another thing, one of the principal offices which Jesus Christ fills for true Christians. Twice over our Lord uses an expression which, to an Eastern hearer, would be singularly full of meaning. Twice over he says emphatically, "I am the Good Shepherd." It is a saying rich in consolation and instruction.
Like a good shepherd, Christ knows all His believing people. Their names, their families, their dwelling-places, their circumstances, their private history, their experience, their trials--with all these things Jesus is perfectly acquainted. There is not a thing about the least and lowest of them with which He is not familiar. The children of this world may not know Christians, and may count their lives folly; but the Good Shepherd knows them thoroughly, and, wonderful to say, though He knows them, does not despise them.
Like a Good Shepherd, Christ cares tenderly for all His believing people. He provides for all their needs in the wilderness of this world, and leads them by the right way to a city of habitation. He bears patiently with their many weaknesses and infirmities, and does not cast them off because they are wayward, erring, sick, footsore, or lame. He guards and protects them against all their enemies, as Jacob did the flock of Laban; and of those that the Father has given Him He will be found at last to have lost none.
Like a Good Shepherd, Christ lays down his life for the sheep. He did it once for all, when He was crucified for them. When He saw that nothing could deliver them from hell and the devil, but His blood, He willingly made His soul an offering for their sins. The merit of that death He is now presenting before the Father's throne. The sheep are saved for evermore, because the Good Shepherd died for them. This is indeed a love that passes knowledge! "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13.)
Posts
