Amyraldism

[Brennin]

I am currently weighing Amyraldism as a possible soteriological position. From Theopedia:

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, summarized the views of Moise Amyraut in five propositions:

* (T)he motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general.

* From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible.

* God, in virtue of a decretum universale hypotheticum [i.e., a hypothetical universal decree], offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ.

* All men have a natural ability to repent and believe.

* But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give his efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.

I like it because it appears to maintain God's sovereignty without the harshness of standard Calvinism.

 

[cygnusx1]

I am currently weighing Amyraldism as a possible soteriological position. From Theopedia:

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, summarized the views of Moise Amyraut in five propositions:

* (T)he motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general.

* From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible.

* God, in virtue of a decretum universale hypotheticum [i.e., a hypothetical universal decree], offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ.

* All men have a natural ability to repent and believe.

* But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give his efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.

I like it because it appears to maintain God's sovereignty without the harshness of standard Calvinism.

yes it does have appeal , but getting to grips with the merits values meanings of the ATONEMENT , which blots out sin , reconciles sinners and saves us , really made me realise (after three years study) that Amyraldian position is not a sufficient answer to the atonement as revealed in scripture . Please keep in mind that almost all Calvinists , certainly most Reformed will see a sufficiency in the Atonement for all.

here's a tip , read John Owen's magnum opus , ' The death of death in the death of Christ Jesus ' , where he handles all of these points so well , it is available online.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html

 

[Van]

Hi Brennin, there is no need to accept the traditions of men, only the inspired doctrines of God's word. Lets go over your list of premises:

The motive of God to redeem men is love for mankind in general. This meshes well with "For God so loved the world that He gave His one of a kind Son that whoever believers in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

From this motive, He sent his Son to make the salvation of all men possible. This is half right. For Jesus not only makes salvation possible as the propitiation for the whole world, but He accomplishes the salvation of all those who receive the reconciliation provided by His propitiation.

God offers salvation to all mankind, on the condition that they believe in Christ with all their heart, mind and understanding. That is true.

All men have the natural ability to believe and repent. This is false. Now it may be true that most men at some point in the early part of their life have an ability to believe and repent, but many of them loose it, such that when confronted by the gospel, they cannot understand it. Matthew 13:19.

But this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability. I am sorry but this idea is unclear to me. Since the "natual ability" applies to "all men" we are not talking about the corruption of the fall, because all men are corrupted already. But if that is the idea, that all men have moral inability, then this too is a false doctrine. Matthew 13:20-22 teaches that some men have the ability to receive the gospel with joy.

Since men can do nothing to save themselves, not even believing in Christ automatically saves us, God's sovereignty is maintained by accepting that it is God alone who credits our faith as righteousness, and puts us in Christ, Romans 4:4-5/24; and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31.

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi Brennin, there is no need to accept the traditions of men, only the inspired doctrines of God's word. Lets go over your list of premises:

The motive of God to redeem men is is love for mankind in general. This meshes well with "For God so loved the world that He gave His one of a kind Son that whoever believers in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

From this motive, He sent his Son to make the salvation of all men possible. This is half right. For Jesus not only makes salvation possible as the propitiation for the whole world, but He accomplishes the salvation of all those who receive the reconciliation provided by His propitiation.

God offers to salvation to all mankind, on the condition that they believe in Christ with all their heart, mind and understanding. That is true.

All men have the natural ability to believe and repent. This is false. Now it may be true that most men at some point in the early part of there life have an ability to believe and repent, but they loose it, such that when confronted by the gospel, they cannot understand it. Matthew 13:19.

But this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability. I am sorry but this idea is unclear to me. Since the "natual ability" applies to "all men" we are not talking about the corruption of the fall, because all men are corrupted already. But if that is the idea, that all men have moral inability, then this too is a false doctrine. Matthew 13:20-22 teaches that some men have the ability to receive the gospel with joy.

Since men can do nothing to save themselves, not even believing in Christ saves us, God's sovereignty is maintained by accepting that it is God alone who credits our faith as righteousness, and puts us in Christ, Romans 4:4-5/24; and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31.

here you mistake the inspired doctrines of God's word as being the same as your own dogmas , tell us all van how you can make a distinction between the teachings of other Christians , putting them all down as nothing but "the traditions of men" in order to elevate your own teachings as being "the doctrines of God's word " ???? edit

 

[savedbygrace57]

I am currently weighing Amyraldism as a possible soteriological position. From Theopedia:

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, summarized the views of Moise Amyraut in five propositions:

* (T)he motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general.

* From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible.

* God, in virtue of a decretum universale hypotheticum [i.e., a hypothetical universal decree], offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ.

* All men have a natural ability to repent and believe.

* But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give his efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.

I like it because it appears to maintain God's sovereignty without the harshness of standard Calvinism.

This position is a false gospel most hold this doubleminded dubious position it is not Of God..it is not the gospel..

 

[Brennin]

This position is a false gospel most hold this doubleminded dubious position it is not Of God..it is not the gospel..

As I see it, five point Calvinism is difficult to reconcile with Scriptural references to God's benevolence and his desire that all obtain salvation.

 

[beloved57]

As I see it, five point Calvinism is difficult to reconcile with Scriptural references to God's benevolence and his desire that all obtain salvation.

Thats the problem God does not desire all to obtain salvation, but only all the elect as paul states..

2 tim 2:

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

 

[Brennin]

Thats the problem God does not desire all to obtain salvation, but only all the elect as paul states..

2 tim 2:

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

John 3:16

16 ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.


1 John 2:1-2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:3-6

3This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For
there is one God;
there is also one mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself a ransom for all
—this was attested at the right time.

2 Peter 3:9

9The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,* not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

I think these verses support Amyraldism.

 

[savedbygrace57]

van says

The motive of God to redeem men is love for mankind in general.

False..Gods redemptive Love is centered only in the electing love of God in christ..

 

[savedbygrace57]

John 3:16

16 ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.


1 John 2:1-2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 Timothy 2:3-6

3This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For
there is one God;
there is also one mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself a ransom for all
—this was attested at the right time.

2 Peter 3:9

9The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,* not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

I think these verses support Amyraldism.

All your references here apply to all elect...

Also you have not dealt with non of my previous verses, you exegete mine and I can exegete yours..please dont skip over..

 

[Brennin]

All your references here apply to all elect...

Also you have not dealt with non of my previous verses, you exegete mine and I can exegete yours..please dont skip over..

You have not posted any verses to support your view and your exegesis of the ones I posted is erroneous.

Everyone/whole world/all != the elect.

 

[cygnusx1]

You have not posted any verses to support your view and your exegesis of the ones I posted is erroneous.

Everyone/whole world/all != the elect.

Hi Brennin .

Terms such as "world" , "all" , are seldom if ever used in an absolute way in scripture . This is not a personal opinion , you can check it up .

here's a starter ;


Significant study of the true meaning of a popular text........


Calvinism and 2 Peter 3:9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5XCbupnHA




Studies On The Word "all"

http://www.pbministries.org/Theology...appendix_4.htm

studies in the word "world" ;

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Miscellaneous/kosmos.htm

 

[Van]

Lets consider 2 Timothy 2:10: For this reason, I (Paul) endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen...snip. Does this say for the sake of those who had been chosen some time in the past? Nope, not exclusively. Those who had been chosen would be among those who are chosen. How about people chosen in the future because of the message brought by the word and pen of Paul? Yes, they too would be among those who are chosen. So this verse is consistent with Christ becoming the propitiation of the whole world, 1 John 2:2, and not just the supposedly preselected elect according to the false doctrine of Calvinism's limited atonement.

 

[Van]

"All" never refers to the "universal all" but rather to all the parts of the whole in view. If I say the whole world, then not just Jews or believers are in view, but all of mankind. For God so loved the world, refers to all of mankind in general, and not to a supposed subset of the world, the chosen.

One of the best ways to determine who Christ died for is to compare the idea that Christ died for all, and Christ died for the many. Now the many refers to everyone except Christ. Everyone else is part of the many. The just, and only Christ is just, for the unjust, and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

The view expressed in the OP is closer to biblical truth than 5 point Calvinism, but it still falls short of the gospel of Christ.

 

[Jipsah]

tell us all van how you can make a distinction between the teachings of other Christians , putting them all down as nothing but "the traditions of men" in order to elevate your own teachings as being "the doctrines of God's word " ???? edit

<Laugh> Especially when he feels the need to say "that's what it says, but what it really means is..." as often as he does. Looks like those folks who wrote the Bible just weren't very good at conveying what they "really meant", at least in the Arminian economy.

 

[Jipsah]

[

Those who had been chosen would be among those who are chosen.

You reckon?

How about people chosen in the future because of the message brought by the word and pen of Paul? Yes, they too would be among those who are chosen.

Those are the ones who God foreknew but didn't really know about beforehand because foreknew really means knew about it after it happened, right?

false doctrine of Calvinism's limited atonement.

Do you believe that everyone's sins have been atoned for, but yet some end up in hell anyway? If so, what 'zactly does "atonement" mean? I think you're stuck in the False Doctrine of Hyper Arminianism, with it's pernicious notions of "God not only didn't choose beforehand, he didn't even know beforehand".

 

[cygnusx1]

<Laugh> Especially when he feels the need to say "that's what it says, but what it really means is..." as often as he does. Looks like those folks who wrote the Bible just weren't very good at conveying what they "really meant", at least in the Arminian economy.

i notice he has nothing to say , he has no answer for this blatant prejudice against the insightful works of other men ......


why should van's word be superior than the words of many Christian men gifted by God ?

why are the words of other men merely "traditions" and van's word can be above traditions ? is it because he is more honest , more gifted , more talented , better at logic , more widely read , or what ?

until there are answers , van's word remains just "the traditions of men " .

 

[Van]

To equate the traditions of men, such as Calvinism, with me is absurd. Jesus spoke of the traditions of men, and was referring to a historical view held by those in the past. But Jesus was wrong according to some, everyone's view of scripture, right or wrong is simply a tradition of men. LOL

Four point Calvinism is closer to the Truth, than 5 Point Calvinism. Three Point Calvinism is closer to the truth than 4 point Calvinism. Two point Calvinism is closer to the Truth, than 3 point Calvinism. Once saved, always saved is the truth.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregeneate folks receive the gospel with joy.

Unconditional Election is demonstrated false by James 2:5 where God chooses those who love God.

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2, where Jesus is the propitiation (the means of salvation) for the whole world.

Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where men who are entering heaven, and therefore under the supposed influence of irresistible grace are turned aside by false doctrine.

 

[cygnusx1]

To equate the traditions of men, such as Calvinism, with me is absurd. Jesus spoke of the traditions of men, and was referring to a historical view held by those in the past. But Jesus was wrong according to some, everyone's view of scripture, right or wrong is simply a tradition of men. LOL

this is nonesense , you claim that the words and works of others on scripture , their understanding , is nothing but the traditions of men , how are your own views nothing more than that ?

is it because you cannot trace your dogmas to anyone in history that you think it gives you some advantage over previous Christians ?

if you really think that is an advantage , then all i can say is drink some coffee when you awake from your dream. lol !

 

[Jipsah]

To equate the traditions of men, such as Calvinism, with me is absurd.

I agree. There's a Biblical basis for Calvinism. In the case of your soteriology, you begin with your human-centered assumptions and then "interpre" Scripture to support them, whether it actually does or not.

But Jesus was wrong according to some

What was it He was wrong about?

Four point Calvinism is closer to the Truth, than 5 Point Calvinism.

The "truth" beling Baptist doctrine, right?

Once saved, always saved is the truth.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22 where unregeneate folks receive the gospel with joy.

Remember the seed sewn on stony ground?

Unconditional Election is demonstrated false by James 2:5 where God chooses those who love God.

So you believe that after God chooses them (which Paul says happened "from the foundation of the world") that someone can pluck them out of His hand? Who, and how?

Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2, where Jesus is the propitiation (the means of salvation) for the whole world.

You still haven't 'splained how someone whose sins have been atoned for goes to hell anyway.

Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13 where men who are entering heaven, and therefore under the supposed influence of irresistible grace are turned aside by false doctrine.

How many of those who were "turned aside" were among the elect?

A shame you can't support your soteriological position without trying to impose meanings of Scripture that simply aren't there. The idea of changing the Bible to fit the doctrine is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.