.
Dear forum members,
.
Shortly after the Synod of Dordt adopted the Canons, an error arose in France that greatly influenced subsequent theology. I speak of the error of Amyraldianism. The error owes its name to its most influen
tial defender, Moise Amyraut. It was claimed to be Calvinism, but was in fact a repudiation of the Calvinism of Calvin and the teachings of the Synod of Dordt.
.
The heresy that it taught was called “hypothetical universalism”. It taught that “hypothetically” God loves all men; Christ died for all men; in His goodness towards all men, God made salvation available to all men; gave all men the promise of salvation on condition of faith; and actually bestowed an objective grace on all men. However, in fact, God saves only the elect and confers on them the grace of salvation.
.
The system of theology promoted by Amyraut was a strong foundation for the gracious and well-meant offer of the gospel. The ideas are almost identical.
.
The doctrine became sheer Arminianism – as one would expect that it would. It was based on the “two-will” idea in God: one will that wills the salvation of all men, and another will that wills the salvation of the elect. These two wills are sometimes called “the will of God’s decree” and “the will of His command;” or: “the secret will of God” and “the revealed will of God.” It is a distinction dear to the hearts of well-meant offer defenders. It is an idea repudiated by Calvin in his Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, a book I referred to in any earlier installment. It is a distinction with which we shall have to deal in a subsequent article.
.
Further, the system of Amyraut is based on a distinction in God’s grace between objective grace and subjective grace. Objective grace is God’s universal promise of salvation through a universal atonement on condition of faith. Subjective grace is the actual working of God in the heart of man to save him. The objective grace is a “common” grace, given to all who hear the gospel; subjective grace is given only to the elect.
.
We ought to notice that the terms “objective” and “subjective”, especially the former, can be confusing. By objective grace is not meant a grace that is purely objective to the one hearing the preacher preach, so that he only hears about grace towards all men, and does not actually receive grace in his heart. The Amyraldians taught that the grace that comes to all men who hear the preaching includes a subjective grace applied to the heart, but this grace is not a saving grace, for saving grace depends on the fulfillment of the condition of faith. The “common grace” to which the well-meant offer refers, also includes a subjective grace that enables the hearer to decide either for or against the gospel. But we shall wait for further discussion of this subject in a later installment.
.
This view of the Amyraldians sounds like the conditional theology of those who hold to a conditional covenant. God’s promise is to all baptized members of believers objectively, but is subjectively given only on condition of faith. I do not hesitate a moment to state that conditional salvation, in whatever form it appears, is Arminian and Amyraldian.
* * * *
The views of Amyraut are peculiar and one wonders why any theologian could possibly give them credence. And yet they became popular in the British Isles. Several Amyraldians were present at the Westminster Assembly and argued vehemently their position. Richard Baxter was an Amyraldian and, at first, refused to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith – although later he did sign it, evidently persuaded that the Westminster Confession allowed room for his views. Edward Fisher, in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, also held to the teachings of Amyraut; his book had considerable influence at the time of the Marrow Controversy in the beginning of the 18th century.
* * * *
The easiest way to learn what the Amyraldians taught is to consult the Formula Consensus Helvetica. The introduction of this confession, as it appears in A. A. Hodge’s “Outlines of Theology,” reads: “Composed in Zurich, A. D. 1675, by John Henry Heidegger, of Zurich, assisted by Francis Turretin, of Geneva, and Luke Gernler, of Basle, and designed to condemn and exclude that modified form of Calvinism, which, in the seventeenth century, emanated from the Theological School at Saumer, represented by Amyrault, Placaeus, and Daille; entitled ‘Form of Agreement of the Helvetic Reformed Churches respecting the doctrine of universal grace, the doctrines connected therewith, and some other points.’” (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology [New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878] 656-663.)
.
After emphatically defining and defending sovereign and eternal election in Articles 4 and 5, the confession goes on to say in Article 6: “Wherefore we can not give suffrage to the opinion of those who teach:--(1) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a sort of special love for the fallen human race ... did, in a kind of conditioned willing—willingness—first moving of pity, as they call it—inefficacious desire—purpose the salvation of all and each, at least, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe; (2) that He appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen ....”
.
This article is a specific reference to the teachings of Amyraut. It is a bit complicated in this form, but means that God loved the fallen human race in a special way. Further, God willed and purposed to save all men, although His desire and purpose to save all men was conditional and without the efficacy to save. That willingness to save all men arose out of pity for all men.
.
Again, after emphatically asserting, against the Amyraldians, that Adams’s sin, imputed to the whole human race, includes both the imputed guilt of Adam’s sin to the human race, and its inherent hereditary sin, the Confession goes on to say, “Accordingly we can not, without harm to Divine truth, give assent to those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by appointment of God, and that his sin is imputed, therefore, immediately, to his posterity …” (Article 12).
.
This article makes clear that those of the school of Amyraut denied original sin, both in the sense of original guilt and original pollution.
.
Concerning the death of Christ and the extent of his atoning work, the creed says: “… He encountered dreadful death instead of (in the place of, HH) the elect alone, restored only these into the bosom of the Father’s grace ...” (Article 12). The Amyraldians were not hesitant to speak of a certain “hypothetical” universalism in the suffering of our Savior on the cross.
.
After turning to the subject of the calling of God, the confession says, “Although these ’all’ (in John 6:40, HH) are elect alone, and God formed no plan of universal salvation without any selection of persons, and Christ therefore died not for every one but for the elect only who were given to Him ...” (Article 19). John 6:40 reads: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Amyraldians interpreted that text to mean that God willed the salvation of all, but actually bestowed it on those who saw the Son and believed. This interpretation is rejected by the Consensus Helvetica.
.
Article 20 follows with this strong language: “Accordingly we have no doubt that they err who [hold] the absolute universality of grace ...” (Article 20).
.
The defenders of the well-meant gospel offer teach exactly what the Helvetic Consensus repudiated, that is that God is gracious to all who hear the gospel.
.
While the Consensus Helvetica did not attain creedal status in any Reformed or Presbyterian Church, it was held in high esteem in the Swiss Churches and was the consensus of the Swiss theologians who worked in the major cities of Switzerland over one hundred years after the death of Calvin.
.
There can be little doubt about it that the teachings of the well-meant gospel offer closely parallel those of Amyraldianism. These views were emphatically rejected by the Swiss churches.
.
With warmest regards,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko
Dear forum members,
.
Shortly after the Synod of Dordt adopted the Canons, an error arose in France that greatly influenced subsequent theology. I speak of the error of Amyraldianism. The error owes its name to its most influen
tial defender, Moise Amyraut. It was claimed to be Calvinism, but was in fact a repudiation of the Calvinism of Calvin and the teachings of the Synod of Dordt..
The heresy that it taught was called “hypothetical universalism”. It taught that “hypothetically” God loves all men; Christ died for all men; in His goodness towards all men, God made salvation available to all men; gave all men the promise of salvation on condition of faith; and actually bestowed an objective grace on all men. However, in fact, God saves only the elect and confers on them the grace of salvation.
.
The system of theology promoted by Amyraut was a strong foundation for the gracious and well-meant offer of the gospel. The ideas are almost identical.
.
The doctrine became sheer Arminianism – as one would expect that it would. It was based on the “two-will” idea in God: one will that wills the salvation of all men, and another will that wills the salvation of the elect. These two wills are sometimes called “the will of God’s decree” and “the will of His command;” or: “the secret will of God” and “the revealed will of God.” It is a distinction dear to the hearts of well-meant offer defenders. It is an idea repudiated by Calvin in his Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, a book I referred to in any earlier installment. It is a distinction with which we shall have to deal in a subsequent article.
.
Further, the system of Amyraut is based on a distinction in God’s grace between objective grace and subjective grace. Objective grace is God’s universal promise of salvation through a universal atonement on condition of faith. Subjective grace is the actual working of God in the heart of man to save him. The objective grace is a “common” grace, given to all who hear the gospel; subjective grace is given only to the elect.
.
We ought to notice that the terms “objective” and “subjective”, especially the former, can be confusing. By objective grace is not meant a grace that is purely objective to the one hearing the preacher preach, so that he only hears about grace towards all men, and does not actually receive grace in his heart. The Amyraldians taught that the grace that comes to all men who hear the preaching includes a subjective grace applied to the heart, but this grace is not a saving grace, for saving grace depends on the fulfillment of the condition of faith. The “common grace” to which the well-meant offer refers, also includes a subjective grace that enables the hearer to decide either for or against the gospel. But we shall wait for further discussion of this subject in a later installment.
.
This view of the Amyraldians sounds like the conditional theology of those who hold to a conditional covenant. God’s promise is to all baptized members of believers objectively, but is subjectively given only on condition of faith. I do not hesitate a moment to state that conditional salvation, in whatever form it appears, is Arminian and Amyraldian.
* * * *
The views of Amyraut are peculiar and one wonders why any theologian could possibly give them credence. And yet they became popular in the British Isles. Several Amyraldians were present at the Westminster Assembly and argued vehemently their position. Richard Baxter was an Amyraldian and, at first, refused to sign the Westminster Confession of Faith – although later he did sign it, evidently persuaded that the Westminster Confession allowed room for his views. Edward Fisher, in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, also held to the teachings of Amyraut; his book had considerable influence at the time of the Marrow Controversy in the beginning of the 18th century.
* * * *
The easiest way to learn what the Amyraldians taught is to consult the Formula Consensus Helvetica. The introduction of this confession, as it appears in A. A. Hodge’s “Outlines of Theology,” reads: “Composed in Zurich, A. D. 1675, by John Henry Heidegger, of Zurich, assisted by Francis Turretin, of Geneva, and Luke Gernler, of Basle, and designed to condemn and exclude that modified form of Calvinism, which, in the seventeenth century, emanated from the Theological School at Saumer, represented by Amyrault, Placaeus, and Daille; entitled ‘Form of Agreement of the Helvetic Reformed Churches respecting the doctrine of universal grace, the doctrines connected therewith, and some other points.’” (A.A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology [New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1878] 656-663.)
.
After emphatically defining and defending sovereign and eternal election in Articles 4 and 5, the confession goes on to say in Article 6: “Wherefore we can not give suffrage to the opinion of those who teach:--(1) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a sort of special love for the fallen human race ... did, in a kind of conditioned willing—willingness—first moving of pity, as they call it—inefficacious desire—purpose the salvation of all and each, at least, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe; (2) that He appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen ....”
.
This article is a specific reference to the teachings of Amyraut. It is a bit complicated in this form, but means that God loved the fallen human race in a special way. Further, God willed and purposed to save all men, although His desire and purpose to save all men was conditional and without the efficacy to save. That willingness to save all men arose out of pity for all men.
.
Again, after emphatically asserting, against the Amyraldians, that Adams’s sin, imputed to the whole human race, includes both the imputed guilt of Adam’s sin to the human race, and its inherent hereditary sin, the Confession goes on to say, “Accordingly we can not, without harm to Divine truth, give assent to those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by appointment of God, and that his sin is imputed, therefore, immediately, to his posterity …” (Article 12).
.
This article makes clear that those of the school of Amyraut denied original sin, both in the sense of original guilt and original pollution.
.
Concerning the death of Christ and the extent of his atoning work, the creed says: “… He encountered dreadful death instead of (in the place of, HH) the elect alone, restored only these into the bosom of the Father’s grace ...” (Article 12). The Amyraldians were not hesitant to speak of a certain “hypothetical” universalism in the suffering of our Savior on the cross.
.
After turning to the subject of the calling of God, the confession says, “Although these ’all’ (in John 6:40, HH) are elect alone, and God formed no plan of universal salvation without any selection of persons, and Christ therefore died not for every one but for the elect only who were given to Him ...” (Article 19). John 6:40 reads: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Amyraldians interpreted that text to mean that God willed the salvation of all, but actually bestowed it on those who saw the Son and believed. This interpretation is rejected by the Consensus Helvetica.
.
Article 20 follows with this strong language: “Accordingly we have no doubt that they err who [hold] the absolute universality of grace ...” (Article 20).
.
The defenders of the well-meant gospel offer teach exactly what the Helvetic Consensus repudiated, that is that God is gracious to all who hear the gospel.
.
While the Consensus Helvetica did not attain creedal status in any Reformed or Presbyterian Church, it was held in high esteem in the Swiss Churches and was the consensus of the Swiss theologians who worked in the major cities of Switzerland over one hundred years after the death of Calvin.
.
There can be little doubt about it that the teachings of the well-meant gospel offer closely parallel those of Amyraldianism. These views were emphatically rejected by the Swiss churches.
.
With warmest regards,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko
No comments:
Post a Comment