Chafer Theological Seminary
Dr. Stephen Lewis received a B.Th. from Multnomah School of the Bible, a Th.M. in Historical Theology from Dallas Theology Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Higher Education from the University of North Texas. He is professor of Church History and the History of Doctrine at Chafer Theological Seminary. Steve also pastors Christian Heritage Church in Palm Desert, California.
Introduction
Are there four points, or five points to Calvinism? This question has plagued many down through the centuries as it relates to the theology developed by John Calvin. Many claim that what Calvin taught was confirmed at the Council of Dort in 1618–19. This council met in response to the Remonstrant’s [1] five points drawn up in 1610. The results of the Council of Dort defined Calvinism by the acronym of T.U.L.I.P. (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints). The area which draws the most attention is the question concerning the extent of the atonement. [2]
After Calvin’s death his followers believed they represented the true teachings of Calvin with regards to the extent of the atonement. Moise Amyraut (1596–1664), one such theologian, taught an unlimited atonement (that Christ did not die for the elect in Christ only). However, the question of whether Amyraut, in his teaching of the universal design of the atonement, preserved or altered Calvin’s doctrine is complicated by the fact that there seems to be little agreement as to whether Calvin himself held such a position. [3] It does appear that a slight change is detectable on this issue from Calvin to the doctrine proclaimed by the Synod of Dort and defended by other orthodox theologians. [4]
Background and Setting for the Atonement Debate
Moise Amyraut was born of a Protestant family in September, 1596, at Bourgueil, France and in 1615–16 he studied law at the University of Poitiers (France). In 1618 he enrolled at Saumur (France) and there studied theology (having been influenced by the reading of Calvin’s Institutes) under John Cameron (the distinguished Scottish theologian [1579-1625]).
An important year for Amyraut was 1631 when he fled to England to teach at Oxford University. On July 28 of that same year, he and Louis Cappel submitted their resignation as part-time professors; instead of accepting their resignation the Academic Council at Oxford appointed them as full professors occupying one chair together (duties being equally distributed). Amyraut was also instrumental in a measure taken by the 1631 Charenton Synod (France) to bring better relationships between the Reformed and Lutherans (including permission to intermarry between the two communion groups). This was the year of his first major publication which was an apology for the Reformed faith against the philosophical position of the Roman Church in the Protestant-Catholic controversy.
Returning to France in 1633, he was accepted as professor at Saumur and he was officially installed to the chair of Theology at Saumur (Saumurian Theology). The next year he published what would become the beginning of the controversy over “universal grace,” his Brief Treatise on Predestination and its Dependent Principles. This was an attempt to appease growing opposition to his first writing (six short, systematic, theological treatises designed as an explanation of defense of his teachings in the Brief Treatise), which was not long after the Council of Dort (1618–19) where Reformed Calvinism was solidified. According to B.A. Demarest, Amyraut wrote this work, and others, to help revise what he called a departure from Calvin among the seventeenth century scholastic Calvinists on grace and predestination. [5] (The Dortians had placed predestination within the doctrine of God and saw faith as a benefit of the Atonement. Amyraut argued that predestination should be removed from the doctrine of God and be discussed under the work of God in Salvation.)
It appears Amyraut sought to create, at the theological level, a bridge with Lutherans who were offended by the Synod of Dort regarding the Atonement. [6] He would also dialogue with the Roman Catholics at this time. He wanted to present what he thought was Calvin’s view concerning predestination in the best possible light. The Roman Church had been advancing their own doubts and skepticism, not for the purpose of returning to orthodoxy, but for the purpose of replacing all reason with the sole authority of the Roman Church. [7]
According to Armstrong, Amyraut’s Brief Treatise was written “in order to relieve the mind of a recent convert from Catholicism to whom the predestinarian teaching was repugnant. Especially, perhaps the common idea, which had resulted from the orthodox (Dort) formulation of this doctrine, that God created the greater part of mankind expressly in order to have an object for his wrath.” [8]
Between May 27 and July 9, 1637 Amyraut was to see his first heresy trial at the National Synod of Alencon (France). According to the Journal Sommaire four main teachings of Amyraut were discussed at length (the principle “errors” attacked by du Moulin [1568-1658]) were:
- The order of the decrees (June 17)
- The sending of Jesus Christ for all universally and his doctrine of the conditional decrees (June 18, 19)
- The universality and sufficiency of the grace presented to all (June 22)
- Original sin and moral and natural ability (June 22)
In 1644 he was tried for heresy at the National Synod of Charenton (December 16, 1644 to January 26, 1645). In 1659 he was delegated to the National Synod of Loudon (the last of the French National Synods) and was tried again for heresy—both of these times he was acquitted. Finally on January 13, 1664, he died in Saumur.
It must be noted that in 1675, the Swiss Reformed Church prepared The Formula Helvetic Consensus largely to counter the Saumurian theology of Cameron and Amyraut.
A Brief Critique of Amyraut’s View of Predestination and the Atonement
To help put this debate in perspective, one must interact with Amyraut’s writing concerning the doctrine of predestination as it relates to the atonement. (see Appendix which contains a survey of Brief Traite de la Predestination et de ses Principales Dependences, that is, Brief Treatise on Predestination and its Dependent Principles. This is a translation by the Frenchman, Dr. Richard Lum).
Amyraut saw that the Scriptures taught two wills of God: a revealed conditional will and a secret unconditional will. He saw no way to combine the two, and he also saw no way that one divine will could be elevated at the expense of the other [The Dortians would sacrifice the universal, revealed and conditional will and elevate the secret unconditional will. The Arminians would do the extreme opposite].
Absolute (Secret)
Irresistible Will of God(Unconditional) |
Revealed Universal Salvific Will of God (Conditioned upon Faith)
(1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9) |
|
Predestination (Ephesians 1)
|
Atonement (1 John 1:2)
|
|
Work of Holy Spirit (irresistible)
|
Universal Preaching
|
|
Faith
|
Amyraut does not teach universalism (hypothetical or otherwise), but does teach that since all are lost or depraved, because of the fall, God in His wisdom chooses some (the elect) and leaves all others to themselves. This appears to be one way of dealing with the destiny of those who never believe and who are non-elect. Calvin himself was unclear as to the extent of the atonement and many believe that he did not teach limited atonement. Luther clearly taught an unlimited atonement or universal grace. The Dortians may have departed from the founders of the Reformation in reaction to the Remonstrance who departed also from the Reformers. Therefore it can be said that Amyraut and the theologians of Saumur did keep the Reformation tradition, at least on the area of the atonement.
Amyraut’s theological method is primarily inductive—arguing from what is observable in nature to prove his point—he uses Scripture at a minimum and only after he has argued from logic and reason. The scripture passages seemed to be added to help supplement his argument only and carry little weight of their own (each chapter puts scripture arguments at the end). However, the Scripture he does use is interpreted correctly.
It does not appear Amyraut has supplanted faith with reason, but he is using faith understood by reason. He argues that God, our creator, is rational and so is His creation. Amyraut is not a rationalist in the sense that he replaces faith by reason, though he appears to put an emphasis on man’s understanding. [9] His wording may be unsettling to some. It must be remembered he writes to show that the Roman Catholic view, which is that all reason is wrong (in order to set up their church authority), is not the answer.
Sabean in his thesis on Amyraut says that Amyraut “Attempts to draw all moral principles from nature. While he does not reject revelation with regards to the subject … He nevertheless tries to find in nature and reason his starting point and basic principles.” [10]
One must admit that there is an ever-recurrent rational motif in this writing, an element some say is closely bound up with his doctrine of natural law. However he is developing his argument according to natural law in order to prove the “reasonableness” of the concept of a predestined fate.
Conclusion
Amyraut held that God’s sovereignty is not random because He uses wisdom in electing some (Romans 11:33), and although Christ died sufficiently for all men, His work is only to be considered as efficaciously applied to the elect. Until Calvin’s own view is demonstrated conclusively, it is too much to claim that Amyraut’s doctrine of the universal intention of the atonement represents any greater departure from Calvin than does the doctrine of limited atonement as taught in the Canons of Dort.
Appendix:
Survey of Brief Traite de la Predestination et de ses Principales Dependences (Brief Treatise on Predestination and its Dependent Principles)
Chapter I: Introduction
From the beginning of his book Amyraut argued inductively, first from natural revelation. He placed a high regard for man as created in God’s image which set man apart from all else of creation. Part of that image is the ability to use reason and choose. God is compared to an architect: perfect plans produce perfect buildings. God is the source of the light of sanctity and virtue. To him man’s end is very special in relationship to all others. He defined predestination and providence: providence concerns the guidance of the world; predestination is applied to denote not only that providence which watches over the actions of man in general, but particularly that by which God had ordained them to their end. Sin came in following the ordination of man to adoption and “induced” God to take new councils. His will developed two in directions: 1) ordination of the world in general, and 2) ordination of the destiny of man.
Chapter II: Why God Created the World
Amyraut began by distinguishing between the worker and the work (illustrated by a watchmaker). The purpose of the world was to bring glory to the one who formed it. God does good, not to seek glory but because He is good. God’s principle end in creation was that He willed to be good in His nature and effects.
Chapter III: Why God Created Man in Particular
God gave man existence above all creation. God’s goodness desired His own image to shine in man. The reason being that in God there are two inseparable things—He is good and Holy and He lacks nothing for His happiness and glory. God’s purpose in man: perfection and happiness (which are part of God’s image in man). If unfallen perfection would have become permanent then so would have happiness also. But in the fall man lost both.
Chapter IV: Why God Permitted the First Man to Sin
Man has fallen by his own fault, now his design is altered. Amyraut asked the question “why did God permit the fall?” His only explanation was that God created man for perfection and happiness and in the temptation man saw that it was to his advantage to partake (2 Corinthians 11:3). He attributed this sin to a “vicious error of his understanding.” Yet he never answered the question except to say that God did permit the Fall and who are we to question something so profound. God’s providence is seen throughout Scripture in that He beforehand determined what ought to be, for example, Judas (Acts 4), Joseph (Genesis 45), and Eli’s children (1 Samuel 2). Another explanation Amyraut gave for permitting man’s fall is that if man had been created unable to sin he could not have been natural but would have been supernatural.
Chapter V: The Fruits of the Sin of the First Man
There came two consequences of sin: 1) Man was not able to lift himself up again and 2) He involved the entire race in condemnation. Amyraut appears to have said that sin entered in to man because his understanding was darkened. Man is so under sin that he is unable to deliver himself—any more than a slave may disobey his master. Yet man still hopes he can, but not even love can repair the corruption of our nature. Man’s state of sin is likened to a totally incurable ulcer. This fallen sinful state is transmitted by imputation to each generation like leprous fathers to leprous children.
Chapter VI: God’s Purpose for sending His Son into the World
Since no fallen creature can provide his own redemption, God ordained to send His Son for two purposes: 1) to satisfy the justice of God by the suffering of the punishments that we had deserved (substitution) and 2) to procure the salvation of the human race.
Chapter VII: (Key chapter)
The Nature of the Decree by which God has Ordained to accomplish this purpose, either in regard to its extent or in regard to the condition on which it depends
“Since the misery of men is equal and universal … So the grace of redemption which He (God) has procured and offered to them (man) ought to be equal and universal, provided that they are also found to be equally disposed to receive it.” Sacrifice was offered for all. He asks the question “would God offer salvation to all and exclude some from partaking of that offer?” God is too good and sincere. It is offered to all (1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 4:5–6; Titus 2:11).
There are two sorts of preaching: 1) by the ministry of the Apostles and to those to whom the Gospel is entrusted, resulting that it engenders a faith in the mercy of God, and 2) By God’s providence alone, which if it were not for man’s total blindness would produce faith also in the mercy of God. Man is never saved against his will—he must be persuaded. But man remains in his corruption and natural misery. He stated that all of the New Testament teaches this universal offer (John 3:14–16, 36; I John 5:9–10). When man refuses and rejects receiving Christ as Savior he rejects the only means of Salvation resulting in two sins: 1) Sin of despising so great a grace and 2) accusing God of falsehood about Jesus Christ. According to Amyraut, the universal grace offer is based upon the condition of belief.
Chapter VIII: The Inability of Man, Following His Sin, for the Accomplishing of this Condition
Man is so blind that he doesn’t recognize salvation or its Author and thus deprives himself of it. His support is found in Romans 6:20; 8:7; Ezekiel 36:26; and Ephesians 2:1. There is freedom of the will in man, but God gives us that faith to believe Colossians (1:13; Philippians 2:3; John 3:5; Ephesians 2:5, 10; Romans 11:23; 8:28). We contribute nothing as we are naturally impotent (John 6:44). God’s providence in nature is enough, however, to condemn. Man is so lost that he can’t will anything except as vice commands.
Chapter IX: The Election and Predestination of God by Which He has Ordained to Accomplish this Condition in Some and Leaves others to Themselves, and its Cause
God does a work in lost man so that it makes him believe the grace offered to him. God elects some (particular) by giving them faith and he abandons other to themselves all in His sovereignty. To Amyraut there is no double predestination. For man, good works only follow faith—never preceding it (Ephesians 2:6–7; 2 Timothy 1:9 and Romans 9:10–12). God’s saving grace is not based upon man’s work or his will—God’s choices are not random but done with wisdom (Romans 11:33).
Chapter X: That According to this doctrine God cannot be accused of respect of Persons or of Being the Author of Sin or the cause of the Perdition of Man
Man’s sin is attributed solely to temptation by Satan and is passed on by generation since God cannot be accused of being the author of man’s sin. Then neither can it be that He is the cause of His perdition.
Chapter XI: The Means by which God Accomplishes This Condition In His Elect and Renders His Predestination a certain and Infallible Outcome, and the Knowledge which Can Be had of it
God’s grace is always rejected by natural man, but God does a work in man of irresistible or efficacious grace (Ephesians 1:17–19; John 6:45). The knowledge necessary for salvation [because “believe” means being persuaded of the truth of something] is from the power of the Spirit. God gives faith to the elect.
Chapter XII: That in Acting in this Manner God has not Destroyed the Nature of Man’s will
Amyraut elevated man’s “understanding” as the center of man’s conversion. He stated that the will is almost neutral and only follows the understanding to good or evil. So when the Spirit persuades irresistibly man’s understanding it is impossible not to believe.
Chapter XIII: That This Doctrine Does not Lead to Complacency and Does not Extinguish Concern for Living Well, but does just the Opposite
To Amyraut there is but one counsel of God: conditional predestination to salvation and absolute election to faith. For him there is an antinomy—atonement was universal and at the same time limited to the elect. The ability to believe is a gift of God and all who have been predestined to believe have faith. God’s single counsel has two decrees: 1) gospel universally offered toward salvation if not rejected and 2) the feeling of faith is engendered in the soul (particular) which can’t be rejected. Amyraut taught a single predestination or passive reprobation. Salvation finally brings back God’s image in man—holiness and happiness.
Chapter XIV: That This Doctrine Fill the Consciences of the Faithful with Joy and Consolation
When one realizes this salvation personally, that is, the release from the enslavement by nature to sin and has been delivered from the empire of Satan, it brings joy and the enjoyment of the good things that Christ has acquired for us (John 17:9, 11, 15–17, 20–21; Romans 5:3–4 and 8:28ff).
Notes
- These were the followers of Arminius, who died in 1609, who defined their five key points as: Free Will or Human Ability, Conditional election, Universal Redemption or General Atonement, The Holy Spirit can be effectually resisted, and Falling from Grace.
- For some the application of the atonement is the focus: “Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men?” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 394). This focus claims to be justified by the fact that Christ’s death on the cross actually accomplished the salvation of the elect and, therefore, the extent of the application signifies the extent of the provision of the cross. For others the provision of the atonement is the focus: “Did Christ purpose to make provision for the elect whom God would mysteriously draw to Himself, and also for the non-elect, whom God would mysteriously pass over, but whose salvation He nevertheless desires” (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 394)? This focus claims to be justified by the fact that Christ’s death on the cross only potentially accomplished the salvation of the elect and, therefore, the extent of the provision may be broader than the extent of the application.
- As the debate between R.T. Kendall (Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 [Oxford, 1979] and Paul Helm (Calvin and the Calvinists [Banner of Truth, 1982]) illustrates, texts from Calvin can be cited on both sides of the issue. Since the relationship between Calvin and Amyraut is unclear on this point, however, so is the relationship between Calvin and Amyraut’s orthodox opponents.
- Although the teachings of the Dortians differed somewhat from Calvin, there is no question that some of the emphases and expressions of Amyraut differ from those of Calvin. One example is that Calvin makes much more of the depravity of the will and its need for conversion, reconstitution, transformation, as distinct from the understanding (Institutes II:iii:6). He emphasizes the importance of the will or heart, as well as the understanding or mind, in his treatment of faith (III:ii:36). Is the substance of Amyraut’s thought different from Calvin’s, or can they be harmonized? Armstrong defends Amyraut’s concept of faith by arguing that “persuasion” and “illumination” involve both mind and will for Amyraut since in his mind whatever work the Spirit of God accomplishes in the understanding automatically includes the will. In spite of Amyraut’s insistence upon the necessity, prevenience and irresistibility of God’s grace in illumining man’s mind and thereby determining his will, we may well ask if conversion is as thoroughgoing and transforming a work for Amyraut as it is for Calvin. Whether the rationalistic elements in Amyraut’s theology represent a compromise of his Calvinistic, revelational heritage seems to be still an open question. Perhaps, after all, Amyraut’s rationalism is merely “faith seeking understanding” and not man sitting in judgment upon God’s words and works.
- B. A. Demarest, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by W. A. Elwell, Baker Book House, p. 42.
- Ibid., p. 42.
- Cf. Richard H. Popkin, The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes, 1960.
- B. G. Armstrong, Calvin and Amyraut Heresy, pp. 170–71.
- Not that all men fell in Adam, but that it is what directs the will (which is neutral) and does what is comprehended through the understanding.
- D. Sabean, Amyraut and Rationalism, 1961 Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin, p. 69.
No comments:
Post a Comment