I pulled this quote off of a comment here. http://submerging.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2007/08/08/amyraldism/
"hmmm….I’m having trouble seeing the significance of the difference between 4 and 5 pointers.
4 and 5 Pointers both say that:–we all owe 1 million dollars (random large number)–God writes a check to pay this debt for some of the poor people with no money who are standing in a deep pit they can’t climb out of and can’t reach up to grab the check from God
5 Pointers say that God writes the names of some of those trapped ones on individual checks and lifts those people out and gives them the check.
4 Pointers say that God writes an individual check for each person in the pit with their name on it and shows it to each person in the pit. But they can’t reach the checks with their name on it. So he selects some of the trapped ones out and gives them their checks and the other checks go uncashed.
The 5 pointers seem to have a God that is more efficient, but in the end it seems like an insignificant difference." by commenter doctor winters
This description seems accurate. Dave and Jon, do you see a significant theological difference between Calvinism and Amyraldism on the conception of the atonement? Do you believe Amyraldism to be heretical on this point?
4 comments:
I would think that the nuanced Amyraldistic view on “Limited Atonement” as presented in the above post is a functionally moot point as it is based on an artificial problem that is speculatively solved at best.
I would personally agree with the “Amyraldistic” position stated above and disagree with the “Calvinistic” position, but disagree on the classification of terms. I would argue that the “Amyraldistic” position is actually a liberal or moderate Calvinist position and would go further in stating that it agrees with the Calvinistic impression of “Limited Atonement.” I would also argue that the “Calvinist” position presented in the blog post is either a Hyper-Calvinist or a conservative Calvinistic position. To the Calvinists who would state the first with authority, I would kindly remind them of the speculative nature and lack of scriptural evidence of their claim in attempting to limit infinitude. There is nothing I that can remember (please refresh my memory if there is someone who has some) in scripture stating that the worth of Christ’s death is exactly enough to pay for all of the sin of God’s elect with none extra to spare. Seeing that God is of infinite worth, there is enough worth in God’s death as Christ to satisfy the justice of God towards all of the sin that God ever had, has, and will have created in the entire body of humanity. But, my view is just as admittedly speculative as the view that I am refuting. I cannot claim that my view on the matter is or is not truth and I cannot refute that the opposing view is or is not truth as this theological question does not appear to be either implicitly or explicitly stated in scripture. This theological territory is meddling in the incomprehensible depths of God and any attempt to state otherwise is doomed to a futile end.
I think that the only truthful way to deal with the theological issue at hand is to state that Christ has the hypothetical potential to be a ransom for all, but is actually a ransom for only the elect. This is regardless of any speculative ‘infinite overflow of payment’ or speculative ‘exact payment’ that occurred when God ransomed God’s elect.
I would steer clear of Amyraldianism as it is weak in its views on the efficacy of the Trinitarian Godhead and this spills over into redemption. Also, Amyraut’s view of rationality is weak, particularly in its view of faith. One final complaint about this method of four-point theology is that it relies far too much on the hypothetical and far too little on the actual. There is a very good reason why this method of theology is mockingly referred to as “hypothetical universalism” by John Owen.
Amyraldians usually place the condition for salvation outside of God. Unlike what is said in this post.
Calvinists usually say that Christ also procures (or obtains) any and all conditions by His atonement. The worth of Christ's death goes towards saving completely and actually. God could probably do much more if he desired in his hidden will to with Christ's death. One condition of salvation is faith. We also observe in scripture that not all have faith.
Rofl, I spelled Amyraldism wrong in my post. Sorry.
Post a Comment