Amyraldism

[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. Some men are in that condition of total inability when they here the gospel, Matthew 13:19, but this does not apply to all men.

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.

MyForu​

 

[cygnusx1]

why do some just waste bandwidth by repeats ? all the above have been refuted ...... every month the same tired weak arguements come up .

why would any Christian wish to elevate his own words above others ?

why are the writings of , for example , Sproul , seen as nothing more than "traditions of men " in order to elevate what is essentially a Arminian position except for osas.

if Sproul belongs to a tradtion Calvinist , then those who oppose him on those grounds , most certainly belong to a tradtion , regardless of how "unique" and odd their dogmas appear.

 

[Van]

To equate the traditions of men, such as Calvinism, with the teachings of scripture is absurd. Jesus spoke of the traditions of men, and was referring to a historical view held by those in the past.

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. Some men are in that condition of total inability when they here the gospel, Matthew 13:19, but this does not apply to all men.

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]

repeats , nothing but repeats .. "YAWN " !!!

 

[Van]

Amyraldism is a version of 4 point Calvinism. It rightly observes that Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is unbiblical.

But it fails to see, that if Christ died as a ransom for all, the just for the unjust, all all mankind is unjust, not just the supposedly preselected elect, then the whole house of cards falls. Christ would not die for all if it had already been decided who would be saved. If Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is false, then by logical necessity, God had not yet chosen a fixed number previously. And if God's choosing occurs after live without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10, then Christ's sacrifice is the propitiation of the whole world, for whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

One by one, 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism fall by logical necessity if Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is false.

 

[cygnusx1]

The main weakness with the Amyraldian position is that it contradicts the work of the Trinity .

The Father elects ; Peter 1:2

The Son Atones ; Heb 2

The Spirit Interceeds ; Rom 8:28


for the Amyraldian , the Son atones for those the Father has not elected and for those the Spirit does not interceed , hence it has never been a widely accepted view .

 

[Van]

The Amyraldian position is wholly consistent with the Trinity. 5 Point Calvinism is also wholly consistent with the Trinity.

But to the topic, Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is false doctrine. But logical necessity requires that if you pull that card from the house of cards that is 5 point Calvinism, other cards fall as well.

 

[cygnusx1]

Amyraldians, place divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. It is also known, perhaps more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism. According to B. B. Warfield, "it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism," (Plan, p. 98).

This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe. ... the primary characteristic of the Amyraldian scheme is the placement of election after the atonement. However, opponents contend that Scripture indicates Christ came in order to execute the purpose of election. He came to die for and give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him. See John 10:15 and 17:2, 9. If this point is true, then the decree to elect some of mankind should necessarily precede the decree to provide an atonement. The Amyraldian scheme assumes the reverse to be true. - Source Theopedia

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/11/the_amyraldian_view_undone.php

 

[Jipsah]

Amyraldism is a version of 4 point Calvinism. It rightly observes that Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is unbiblical.

"Biblical", in your economy, meaning whatever meaning you've decided to impose on Scripture.

Christ would not die for all if it had already been decided who would be saved.

Really? How then would they have been saved?

If Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is false

It isn't.

, then by logical necessity, God had not yet chosen a fixed number previously.

The Bible says He did.

And if God's choosing occurs after live without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10

Unrelated Scripture.

then Christ's sacrifice is the propitiation of the whole world

Most of whom go to hell anyway, right?

for whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Yep.. They're called the elect.

One by one, 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism fall by logical necessity if Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is false.

Which it isn't, and hence your "logic" evaporates.

Maybe you'd be better off just repeating that same post over and over.

 

[Jipsah]

But to the topic, Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is false doctrine.

Nah, it's true. It just runs counter to the weakly-formed Baptist doctrines to which you cling as though they themselves were holy writ.

 

[Van]

Many are called but few are chosen. The sequence from scripture is clear. Four point Calvinism is better than 5 Point Calvinism, but neither form is "good."

Both forms fails to see, that if Christ died as a ransom for all, the just for the unjust, and all mankind is unjust, not just the supposedly preselected elect, then the house of cards falls. Christ would not die for all if it had already been decided who would be saved. If Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is false, then by logical necessity, God had not yet chosen a fixed number previously. And if God's choosing occurs after we live without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10, then Christ's sacrifice is the propitiation of the whole world and is available to whoever believes in Him so that they shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[cygnusx1]

Maybe you'd be better off just repeating that same post over and over.

you may be onto something there Jipsah !

 

[vekarppe]

This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith

And that is biblical view.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

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.

You might be interested in checking out the following websites:

http://www.calvinandcalvinism.com/

http://controversialcalvinism.blogspot.com/

http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/


LDG

 

[cygnusx1]

You might be interested in checking out the following websites:

http://www.calvinandcalvinism.com/

http://controversialcalvinism.blogspot.com/

http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/


LDG

thanks for the links LDG , interesting !

many are called but few are chosen , why would God need to choose anyone ? yes I am speaking to those who never answer this !

 

[Van]

Please provide the scripture that teaches God "needs" to choose anyone? Thus the question is answered, God does not need to choose anyone. But God does call the many throught his gospel, and choses the few upon condition of their faith being credited as righteousness, Romans 4:5 and 24.

4 Point Calvinism is closer to truth than 5 point Calvinism; 3 point Calvinism is closer than 4; and 2 closer than 3. Only once saved, always saved is a true doctrine.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22.

Unconditional Election is demonstratred false by James 2:5.

Limited atonement, as defined by Calvinism is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2.

Irresistible grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

 

[nobdysfool]

Opinions vary.

 

[cygnusx1]

the question is a philosophical one that is perhaps the reason why it flew over a certain persons head ---- if men can choose God why does God need to choose them ?

why is there a need for any election whatsoever ?

still no answers...............

 

[A New Dawn]

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.

I am not a total 5-point Calvinist, I would probably consider myself a 4.5-point Calvinist, with less emphasis placed on limited atonement because, while I feel that Christ died for the sins of the world, it was so that the elect could have eternal life.

John 3:16, which you quoted, does not state that everyone would have eternal life, it states that everyone who believed would have eternal life.

There are many scriptures that indicate that not all will be saved.

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

And from the parable of the sower of the seeds, found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, regarding who will hear the gospel:
Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

From this parable it seems that there are those who don't have ears to hear.

 

[A New Dawn]

Amyraldism is a version of 4 point Calvinism. It rightly observes that Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is unbiblical.

But it fails to see, that if Christ died as a ransom for all, the just for the unjust, all all mankind is unjust, not just the supposedly preselected elect, then the whole house of cards falls. Christ would not die for all if it had already been decided who would be saved. If Limited Atonement, as defined by Calvinism, is false, then by logical necessity, God had not yet chosen a fixed number previously. And if God's choosing occurs after live without mercy, 1 Peter 2:9-10, then Christ's sacrifice is the propitiation of the whole world, for whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

One by one, 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism fall by logical necessity if Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is false.

I don't believe that Calvin taught limited atonement. That came with his followers who felt it was a logical extention.