Help with Calvinism and Amyraldianism

[welshchick]

I was wondering if someone could help me a wee bit. I've got a Christian Doctrine exam next week, and i was doing revision this morning and 2 topics that i think will come up in the exam are Calvinism and Amyraldianism.

I don't really understand my notes that i've got from my lecturer, and was wondering if someone could tell me the basics of both these views? or give me a link to a good website about them? Please dont give me anything too heavy or long though, as i've tried a few books but they got way too complicated and i got all confused! i would just like to know the basics of both views.

(it's actually rather embarrassing as i'm a calvinist myself, but i don't really know what his view actually was!)

I'm going to post this in another forum too as i'm not sure which one it would best go in.

 

[Patristic]

I can't really get into specifics right now since I am at work and do not have access to any of my materials. Nevertheless, Amyraldianism was the system of thought of the French theologian Charles Amyraut(I don't know if I spelled that correctly, but it's my best guess at the moment.) Anyways, he differed from the scholastic Calvinist's of his time in that he believed in God's universal love of mankind and believed in unlimited atonement, or that Christ died for all, but that it was only efficient for the elect. He also eschewed the covenant theology model and developed his own view that is viewed by some to be the foundation of dispensational thought. Sorry, I can't say anymore, but I hope this helps.

 

[welshchick]

cheers, yeh thats helped a lot. it's taken me all day to get my head around it all! this is what i understand it to be so far:

Calvinism
1. Total depravity
2. Unconditional election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irrestible grace
5. Perseverance of the saints

Amyraldianism
1. Universal grace
2. Universal atonement
3. Particular election
4. Particular and effective grace to the elect

So basically their view on grace is different, and also Amyraut believed that there was atonement before election (so basically he didnt really believe that God predestined the elect). am I right in this?

And also - Arminianism - that we make the choice whether we'll be saved or not. It's not by God's doing, its our own choice.

is that right?

 

[Patristic]

Actually, I would say Amyraldianism looks something like this:
1.)Total Depravity
2.)Unconditional election(but it is man's responsibility to choose)
If this sounds like a contradiction it may be, but many throughout the years have argued for it so I won't delve into whether it is or not.
3.)Unlimited Atonement
Christ died for the everyone sufficiently, but that sacrifice is only efficient for the elect
4.)God's universal love of mankind. He loves all men, but loves the elect with a special saving love.
5.)God's strategy in human history has not been unilateral and constant in one manner. Amyraut disregarded the traditional idea that God worked the same in every age. Instead, he argued that God worked differently in different eras, dividing those eras into that of Law and Grace. He abandoned the covenantal scheme for another one.