Many truly Reformed churches holding to their confessions of faith still exist around the world, although less so in Europe.
The numbers of true Calvinists might be small, but they still hold to their doctrine. Does that mean that Calvinism is ‘wrong’?
Those following Amyraut and Arminius would say yes, however, their theologies flag up ambiguities about Universalism and free will, respectively.
The next two posts will give Calvinist arguments against both these beliefs. Today’s addresses Amyraldism and, by extension, Universalism.
If you’ve been following my study of John’s Gospel in my series Forbidden Bible Verses, you’ll see some familiar verses below.
Martyn J McGeown of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, has written an engaging essay refuting Amyraut’s teachings, excerpts of which follow (emphases mine):
A. The will of God
Amyraut posited a contradiction in the will of God. Amyraut was content to espouse a paradoxical theology:
Although my reason found there some things which seemed to be in conflict, although whatever effort I exert I am unable to harmonize or reconcile them, still I will not fail to hold these two doctrines as true.39
These two contradictory ideas are of course that “God willed the salvation of all men” while at the same time “God willed that only a select few would enjoy participation in this universal salvation procured by Christ”.40 To deny such contradictions in God’s decree is to be contemptuously dismissed as rationalistic or scholastic.41 However, the Bible teaches that God’s will is one: “He is of one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth” (Job 23:13). God does not only have the ability and power to accomplish his will, but He actually does what He wills: “he doeth [not merely, “he can do”] according to his will” (Dan. 4:35). “Our God is in the heavens: he hath done (not, simply, “he is able to do”) whatsoever he hath pleased” (Ps. 115:3). “Whatever the LORD pleased, that did he [not, “that he could do”] in heaven, and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places” (Ps. 135:6). “My counsel shall stand and I shall do all (not “some of”) my pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). Finally, “he worketh [not merely “is able to work if he so chooses”] all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11).
Amyraut, who was bound to the creeds, ought to have known better. The Canons state that “the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one“ (Head I, Article 8, italics mine).
Calvin, Amyraut’s “favourite theologian” gives Amyraut no support here …
If God’s word criticizes the double minded man (James 1:8) what are we to make of Amyraut’s double minded god? Is it conceivable that God could have two opposite purposes in the cross of His beloved Son? Turretin [Amyraut’s refuter] certainly viewed such an idea as absurd:
Who can believe that in the one and simple act by which God decreed all things (although we have to conceive of it by parts), there were two intentions so diverse (not to say contrary) that in one manner Christ should die for all, and in another only for some?43
B. The justice of God
Amyraldianism cannot explain how God can be just in punishing unbelievers eternally for the same sins for which Christ supposedly offered Himself. B. B. Warfield asks, “if this obstacle [i.e., their sin] is removed, are they not saved? Some other obstacles must be invented.”45 The Amyraldian cannot answer that they are damned on account of their unbelief, for, if Christ died for all their sins, that includes their unbelief.
C. God’s intention in sending Christ
What was God’s intention in sending Christ and Christ’s intention in coming into the world? The Scriptures are clear that God sent Christ into the world with a definite purpose in mind. That purpose was to “save sinners” (I Tim. 1:15) …
The name “Jesus” reveals Christ’s purpose, “to save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). He did not intend to save everyone from their sins, but His own people. In other places Christ is said to have given himself to the death of the cross “that he might redeem us from all iniquity” (Titus 2:14) and in order to “deliver us from this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4). His purpose is very clearly expressed in John 6:39-40:
For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Christ did not, therefore, come from heaven and suffer on the cross, to attempt to save all men without exception, including those whom God hates and had rejected from eternity, but He came to save a certain definite number of people.
D. What Christ accomplished by His death
What was accomplished by the cross? The Scriptures are clear that Christ did not accomplish the mere possibility of salvation for all without exception but actual salvation for some. Hebrews 1:3 teaches that Christ “purged” our sins. It was an actual purging of them, not a mere potential purging. Acts 20:28 declares that Christ “purchased” His church with His own blood. It was not a potential but a real purchase that Christ made with the result that the Church is His property. Hebrews 9:12 announces that Christ has “obtained eternal redemption for us;” that is a real obtaining. Colossians 1:14 and Ephesians 1:7 both proclaim that “we have redemption in His blood.” We have it; we do not merely have it hypothetically. I Peter 2:24 teaches that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” that is he truly bore the punishment for them and “healed” us by his stripes. In other places, Christ is said to have “reconciled” us (Col. 1:21), “delivered us” (Gal. 3:13) and “made us nigh” (Eph. 2:13) by His cross …
E. The scripturally-designated objects of Christ’s death
Scripture has various ways of speaking about the objects of Christ’s atoning work. The outstanding passage is John 10. In verse 11, Christ declares that as the good shepherd He lays down His life for His sheep. That not all men are Christ’s sheep is clear from verse 26 where Christ tells the Pharisees in the plainest possible language: “Ye are not of my sheep.” In other words, Christ did not lay down His life for those Pharisees, and by extension, He did not lay down His life for any of the reprobate who are not included in the number of His sheep. In addition, Jesus says in Matthew 20:28 that He gives His life a ransom for many, not all without exception. In Acts 20:28 and Ephesians 5:25 the object of Christ’s redemption is the church. Not all men are part of the church for whom Christ died …
However, Amyraut was not deterred, nor was he bridled by the Reformed confessions. He insisted that the Bible teaches that Christ died for “all men” and the “world.”
F. “Universalistic” language in Scripture
Both Arminians and Amyraldians insist that such texts must mean that every member of the human race without exception is included in the cross of Christ. However, we must identify how Scripture uses the word “world” (Greek: kosmos). If we study the use of this word, we will discover that it has a variety of meanings and does not always refer to the entire human race. In John 7:4, Jesus’ brethren urge him, “Shew thyself to the world [kosmos].” Clearly, Jesus’ brothers did not mean that he should reveal himself to all men without exception. In John 12:19 the Pharisees lament Jesus’ popularity with the people, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world [kosmos] is gone after him.” Jesus was not universally known, and certainly not universally followed.
The word “world” is used in Scripture to describe the objects of Christ’s redemption for two main reasons.
In the first place, the word contradicts the idea of the Jews that God’s love is only for their nation while all other nations lie under God’s curse. For men like Nicodemus, it was inconceivable that God could love Gentiles and send the promised Messiah to save them (John 3:16). Jesus uses the word “world” deliberately to correct his false sectarian ideas in this regard. The New Testament Church is catholic and includes people from every nation, not just Israel. The Jews had to learn this. Even wicked Caiaphas was made to declare this: “He prophesied that Christ should die for that nation, but not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52). The text does not say, “not for that nation only, but for the entire human race or all men without exception.” Jesus died for the Jewish nation (but not every individual Jew) and for all the elect Gentiles who, being Jesus[‘s] “other sheep” (John 10:16), must also be gathered by Him. Similarly, Revelation 5:9 states that Christ “redeemed us to God by [His] blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation.” But this does not refer to every individual member of every nation ...
In the second place, Scripture speaks of Christ dying to save the world because of the organic nature of salvation. Christ’s intention is not to save individuals but an elect human race. Christ has redeemed the entire creation. This was also Calvin’s view …
Similarly the phrase “all men” may have many meanings depending on the context. Often the word “men” is not in the original Greek where a form of the adjective, pas (all) is used. For example, Matthew 10:22, “And ye shall be hated of all [pas] men for my name’s sake,” does not teach that every human being without exception shall hate the disciples. When it is said in Matthew 21:26, “All [pas] hold John as a prophet,” not the entire human race is meant, and the disciples’ remark to Jesus is Mark 1:37, “All [pas] men seek thee” cannot be stretched too far. Examples could be multiplied (John 3:26; 11:48; Acts 19:19; 22:15; Rom. 16:19). The principle is that “all men” in the Bible refers to all of a specific group but rarely the entire human race. An illustration from idiomatic English may be appropriate. If I say, “Everybody is coming to my house for a meeting tonight,” I obviously do not mean by the word “everybody” to invite the entire city, never mind the entire human race.51 I have a certain group of people in mind and I mean every member of that group. The phrase “all men” in addition means “all kinds of men,” not just Jews or rich people or old people, but people from every part of society and every nation under heaven …
Hebrews 2:9 teaches that Jesus “tasted death for every man.” If the verse is wrested from its context it seems to teach a death of Christ for all head for head. Verse 10 teaches that Christ’s intention as “captain of their salvation” was to “bring many sons to glory.” If we take verse 10 into consideration the obvious meaning is that Christ tasted death for every son whom He brings to glory of whose salvation He is the captain (the word “man” is not in the Greek of verse 9). Christ did not taste death for those who must drink the cup of God’s wrath for all eternity (Ps. 11:6).
G. Calvin’s “universalistic” language
Although Calvin did use universalistic language when speaking of the death of Christ, something modern Amyraldians love to emphasize,52 it is necessary to understand what Calvin meant by such expressions. Rainbow [a Calvinist theolgian] has done extensive research on this issue. He writes, “Calvin understood ‘human race’ as the assembly of the elect from every kind of humanity.”53 …
H. Christ’s high priestly office
As high priest, Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for, intercedes for, and blesses His people. Amyraut’s Christ offers Himself for all men without exception, but only intercedes for some (John 17:9). Scripture teaches that Christ intercedes on the basis of His atonement. Romans 8:34 links Christ’s atonement to His intercession: “It is Christ that died … who also maketh intercession for us.” Paul takes it as a settled fact that those for whom Christ died are guaranteed salvation. Otherwise his rhetorical question (“Who is he that condemneth?” [Rom. 8:34]) makes no sense. On the basis of Christ’s death and intercession, there is no charge against God’s elect (Rom. 8:33).
I John 2:1-2 also links inextricably Christ’s atonement and His intercession: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins.” When Christ enters the presence of the Father to plead for His people, He does so on the basis of the accomplished redemption (Heb. 7:25-28, 9:11-12, 24). If Christ died for all men, then He must plead for all men …
Turretin writes, “It is gratuitously supposed that a universal intercession can be granted. For as he is always heard by the Father (John 11:42), if he would intercede for all, all would be actually saved.”59
I. The application of the merits of Christ’s atonement
One of the pillars of Amyraldianism is Amyraut’s insistence that “Scripture taught both a universalist design in Christ’s atonement and a particularist application of its benefits.’62 That makes nonsense of Paul’s triumphant question in Romans 8:32, “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?” If there are some for whom Christ was delivered up, who nevertheless perish everlastingly, how can he have freely given them all things? The “all things” must include forgiveness of sins, everlasting life, faith, repentance, the Holy Spirit and everything necessary for salvation …
Amyraut dishonours Christ when he says that Christ was given for all men, but that God does not give all men faith. Why would the Holy Spirit not apply the benefits of salvation to all those for whom the Son died? Does the Holy Spirit, who like the wind “bloweth where it listeth” (John 3:8), have a will contrary to the Son? Such an idea is absurd. The Bible teaches that the salvation procured by Christ is applied to all those for whom it was procured. Turretin writes, “It is gratuitous to say that Christ is the Savior of those for whom salvation is indeed acquired, but to whom it is will never be applied.”64 And, as has been demonstrated, the Canons of Dordt declare that Christ purchased faith for the elect on the cross, and that it is the will of God that faith be conferred upon them (Head II, Article 8).
J. Sufficient for all; effectual for some?
The constant refrain of Amyraldianism is that Christ died sufficiently for all, but effectually for some. We do not deny that Christ’s atonement, as far as the infinite value of it is concerned, is sufficient to redeem the whole world, but the contention is, what was God’s purpose in sending Christ? …
We have seen that Amyraut was not committed to the Canons of Dordt. Head II, Articles 3-4 do indeed teach, and we affirm, that Christ’s death “is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” The Canons, however, do not mean by this that therefore God intended that the atonement expiate the sins of the whole world, or that it was offered for the whole world. Rather they explain that the atonement is infinite in value because of the dignity of the one who died, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God made flesh. Of course, His death was of infinite value. In addition, none deny that faith is necessary to enjoy the salvation purchased by Christ. But faith is part of that salvation purchased for the elect (Canons, Head II, Article II. 8), not a condition of salvation …
K. The nature of redemption
Amyraldianism is refuted when we consider the words used in theology to describe Christ’s work on the cross. Christ made satisfaction to the justice of God against the sins of all those for whom He died. Christ having died for a sinner, that sinner must be released from the guilt and punishment of sin. If he is not saved then the death of Christ is ineffectual. But such a conclusion is intolerable. If all that Christ did was insufficient to save the sinners for whom He died, what hope is there for any sinner? The Bible makes clear that the death of Christ was effectual. It was the purpose of God that it be effectual …
Tomorrow: A refutation of Arminianism
Churchmouse Campanologist 
9 comments
December 1, 2011 at 5:14 pm
calvinandcalvinism
Hey there,
I think I gather from your last comment to me you are wish for me to not comment here at all anymore. I am not quite sure if that was your absolute intention.
If I am wrong, can I ask a question: Would you be willing to have a conversation about some of the various points and claims in the above post? I think a conversation would be a good way wherein you could unfold the errors of the position you are seeking to warn folk against, and I might be able to clarify some basic factual errors I see in the post: which I think can only help your position in the long run.
If not, that’s fine.
David
Calvin and Calvinism
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 6:33 pm
churchmouse
You surmised correctly, David.
Note to readers — anyone attracted to Amyraut’s modified Calvinism may engage with David on his blog.
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth; Calvinist by the Grace of God
Dear Brethren:
Pertaining to the issue of the word “World”, this is my VERY non-scholarly way (as if I can do better! )that I respond to people who bring me verses containing the word WORLD attempting to prove the universality of the Gospel:
Yes, God says that He loves the WORLD, but if this word means EVERY HUMAN BEING THAT EVER EXISTED AND WILL EVER EXIST, we, as disciples of Christ have a MAJOR problem:
– First, in John 17 Jesus says that WE ARE NOT (as His disciples) of the WORLD. That puts as out, away, from the scope of those whom God declares he John 3:16!
– Second, Jesus has a major problem, because in the same text, He indicates that HE DOES NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD. In that case, Jesus is refusing to pray for a group whom God declares He loves in John 3:16
– Thirdly, The Bible indicates that we should not love the world; Specifically in the letters of John. In that case the Bible, and one of the “closest” disciples of Jesus is teaching us NOT TO LOVE a group God declares He loves. If we believe that God inspired the Bible, it would seem that God is giving us confusing commands, wherein He declares to love a group that is the same group He commands us not to love!
Well, I said it would not be scholarly done, so I forewarned you, but it is effective though. I also have a few things to say about the “ALL” word in the scripture, which generally means “without distinction” and also the argument of some who say that Peter declares (and he does!) that …”some denied even the Lord who bought them…”, but I will leave for the next opportunity.
Milt (ex Rev)
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm
churchmouse
Milt — I never really thought about it that way, but it makes perfect sense.
I have a cyberfriend whose favourite — and formative — verse is John 3:16. He’s pretty busy at the moment wrapping things up for the week, but I have pinged him to stop by and read what you have said.
Yes, please do come back with your thoughts on the ‘ALL’ word, which would be very helpful.
However, I would also be most grateful if you could answer another reader’s question much better than I can — that is another cyberfriend, Llew, on today’s post:
I think it is a common problem that many Christians wonder about. If you have time to read that post and respond to him there, I would be very appreciative. Many thanks in advance.
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth, Calvinist by the Grace of God.
Thank you for your kind words brother! I really appreciate. I was unable to identify the question using the link above, but I would like to know what is it and get a chance of responding.
I often use poor attempts to “humor”, in responding, but that does not mean that I am being disrespectful, irreverent, disdainful or sarcastic; mostly is a reflection in the way and the “spirit” in which the question was expressed.
Here is the answer on the issue of “ALL” for which I have Arthur Pink to thank. I posted this answer in a shorter version in my blog and it went somewhat viral in Calvinistic sites, but I think it may have taken down in those sites.
“A gentleman challenged me to answer him how I interpret 1 Tim 2:4 that states “God wants ALL men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”. Well this is the answer I sent him:
Let’s not even try to review the word “saved” according to the context, because, as per the context, it can very well be better translated as “safe”.
Allow me, however, to stick to the word “ALL”, which the the word most use to erect a straw man argument against Calvinists by stating that they want to “twist” every scripture to fit into their system of beliefs. Well, I could respond stating that their God “desires one thing and does another”, but, again, let’s stick to the word “ALL”. Here we go:
…The word “all” in the Bible often means without distinction“, ” and not “ without exception ” or, you should know that for following Jesus you would be hated by “all” men. For example:In Matthew 10:22 our Master says: “and you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake…Logically, there would be no other Christian in the world because all would hate the disciples. Also logically, if our Lord did not exaggerate or lied or tried to spread fear among His followers, and the word “all” means all without exception (which is in every translation of the Bible by the way), then you and I are guilty of hating the poor followers of our Lord. Does that make sense to you?
Now I have to go back to my drawing board. I am trying to build a temple as big as the Temple in Jerusalem that could comport “all” the people from the city. That is because we read in Luke 21: 38 that “…early in the morning Jesus went into the Temple, and “all” the people came to Him. He sat down (sitting down was a position of authority of a teacher in the Temple, which may prove that they were inside- italics are mine-) and taught them. I want a Temple as big as that! The Temple was not so bit as to comport the entire population of the town! So, “all” is not necessarily EVERY PERSON IN THE TOWN; or, without distinction, not without exception. Neither one can say that “all” the people of the town followed Jesus because we know by the context that this is not true. Again, “all” means something other than EVERYBODY that ever lived in the town.
How about the baptismal service in Mark 1:5. What a Baptist celebration! It says that…”went out unto him “all” the land of Judea and of Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the river of Jordan confessing their sins. Too bad Luke 7:30 disputes Mark’s account stating that the Pharisees and the Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of Him. This indicates that they were not “all” after all. (This Presbyterian Luke, always spoiling everything! Always messing up a good Baptist baptismal service!). Just when they believed that they had converted and baptized “all” the population of two cities…! Gotta invite that evangelist again huh?
As seen above, when the Bible mentions the word “all” it means “all, without distinction” and not “all, without exception”. The difference is that without distinction means, for example, all men without distinction for race, social class or background. It also means, for example when it says “hated by all men” it is saying, hated by “all” men that will be contrary to my message. Thus there is a distinguishing factor, that is “men contrary to my message”. The simplest way to read “all” is “all who were with Him” and so on and so forth.
As such, on the text of Paul to Timothy, Paul is referring distinctively to those he is directing addressing to! I repeat what I said in the beginning of this post that the context speaks about “living a quiet and peaceful life” which may indicate that praying for the authorities my result in earthly peace for us, so the word “saved” may be easily translated SAFE, as in temporal affairs, or from an impending tragedy as Peter cried out as drowning: SAVE me Lord lest I perish. He was asking to be SAVED from drowning. So we need to understand the different renditions of the verb “to save” in the N.T.
Paul says that if Timothy continues teaching that which he learned from Paul “he will save himself and his hearers”. Who can affirm that Paul said that Timothy can save with eternal salvation for teaching Paul’s doctrine? God saves! Teaching doctrine points to God’s Salvation, but GOD ALONE SAVES! I hope you understand this.
This is not a controversy about the word SAVE but it is an attempt to show you that 1 Tim 2:4 can have a meaning other than the traditional meaning specially when it introduces the words “GOD DESIRES “ALL” to be saved”.
My final appeal to common sense is to stress again that if the disciples were to be hated by “all” men without exception then you and I and everyone else today would be a disciple hater. Otherwise Jesus would be prone to exaggerate or a complete liar! Think about it!” Don’t check your brains at the door!
Milt
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 11:10 pm
churchmouse
Milt, I particularly love the last paragraph and especially the last sentence: ‘Don’t check your brains at the door!’
So, what I am getting is a difference between in the inference of ‘all’. ‘All’ may mean of all nations or all social classes, but not everyone.
Yes, I understand the point about doctrine pointing to correct belief about God’s salvation — yet, as you rightly point out — God alone saves. We’re not doing it and doctrine isn’t doing it — nor is a Pelagian tick-list of Things to Do to Be Saved.
My friend James Higham (Anglican) has checked in with a thought from his education. Seems to me he is right with the Second Coming of Christ not occurring until the Gospel has been spread to each and every nation. However — unrelated to James — we need to distinguish this from everyone being saved.
And this is the question my friend Llew is struggling with:
And, later on, saying it has bothered him all his life, which, I can bear witness to, as we have been debating it off and on over the past several months. Llew is an Anglican, and I believe that he has a rich faith. He is highly intelligent and I do not think that he is simplistic at all. However, the question of God abandoning people troubles him. If you can explain God’s plan to him, I would be grateful. My sincere thanks.
Churchmouse
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Milton Almeida - Arminian by birth; Calvinist by the Grace of God
Dear Brother! Sorry I never caught your name…
This is the way I will respond for now since I am leaving for a rather busy weekend (if it is anyway inappropriate for me to post a link to my blog here, FEEL ABSOLUTELY FREE to delete it), but I think this article, also written in reply to someone who was questioning “God’s abandonment” of people, MAY deal with the issue and MAY help your friend. I intend to look at the question again, but for now, bear with me and here is the link:
http://miltonalmeida.com/?p=508 – What is REALLY love?
Again, it is not my intention to overstate your kind welcome of me here by advertising my blog, but if you find it okay to leave the link, thank you; if not, but you still may find that the content of the link helps, feel free to copy and paste the article.
Blessings
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 11:30 pm
churchmouse
Many thanks, Milt! A great post as it begins from the same premise — a parent for his/her child. I shall post it on the other link and see if this goes some way to answering Llew’s question.
Many thanks to you for your time (and energy) in His Name.
God bless you in your ministry
Churchmouse
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 8:30 pm
jameshigham
We’re in danger of conflating two distinct ideas here. One is that G-d did not exclude anyone from being saved, hence the need to get the message out beyond the Jews to other peoples. So yes, there are no limits to who can be saved but there are definite limits to who will be.
It’s odds on that the vast majority won’t be because they reject the chance. I can’t remember which reverend said it but the idea is that Jesus won’t come until all have had the chance at least. That the Jews are the chosen people is in little dispute but that does not exclude other believers from heaven.
Whether it is predetermined, predestined who will or won’t be, I’m not qualified to answer.
LikeLike