3. A Closer Look at Amyraut’s Teaching1
Rev Neil M Ross
So far we have looked at only a summary of the Amyraldian theory – the useful one given by Roger Nicole. We shall now try to examine this erroneous theory more closely, bearing in mind that, because of its lack of consistency and logic, it is neither easy to understand or explain. The theory, “strictly speaking”, says George Smeaton, “was an artificial middle way between the sentiments of the Arminians and of the strict Calvinists,” and was “expressed in somewhat ambiguous phraseology: special efficacious grace was replaced by a vague and plausible universalism”.2 Why then spend time on it? Because it has infected swathes of the Christian Church, and therefore we must have some knowledge of it in order to be on our guard against it and combat it.
We may begin with another helpful summary of the theory – that of Charles Hodge: Amyraut taught: “(1.) The motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence, or love to men in general. (2.) From this motive He
1The third part of a paper given at the 2011 Theological Conference. The second part, last month, dealt with the rise and growth of Amyraldianism.
2The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself, 1868, p 374 (emphasis ours).
sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. (3.) God, in virtue of a universal hypothetical decree, offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ. (4.) All men have a natural ability to repent and believe. (5.) But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined [or decreed] to give His efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.”3
So we see that the first principle of Amyraut’s scheme is that God loves all men without distinction, (which is what he means by “benevolence to men in general”), and that it was this universal love in God which moved Him to send His Son into the world. But to do what? Not actually to save a certain number of the human race, says Amyraut, but just to make the salvation of every person possible.
It follows therefore, according to Amyraut’s reasoning, that in some sense God must have decreed and chosen everybody to be saved. This is what Amyraut supposed – which is, of course, the Amyraldian idea of a universal hypothetical decree.
It also seems, therefore, that in some sense Christ’s atoning death was for every person, not excluding the reprobate. Amyraut supposes this also; indeed he is quite explicit about it. In his Treatise on Predestination he says, “The sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered was equally for all, and the salvation which He received from His Father . . . was destined equally for all – provided the necessary disposition for receiving it were equal”.4 This is the Amyraldian idea of hypothetical universal atonement or redemption.
To repeat what John Owen says: Amyraut and the rest of the Saumur school teach “that Christ died for all indeed, but conditionally for some, if they do believe, or will so do (which He knows they cannot of themselves); and absolutely for His own, even them on whom He purposeth to bestow faith and grace, so as actually to be made possessors of the good things by Him purchased”.5
The illogicality of the universalists is famously challenged by Owen when he asks them to choose one of three options with regard to those for whom Christ suffered and died. He died for “either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.”
If the second (that Christ died for all the sins of some men) is chosen, then “that is it which we affirm,” says Owen, “that Christ, in their stead and room, suffered for all the sins of all the elect.”
If the first (that Christ died for all the sins of all men) is chosen, the
3Systematic Theology, vol 2, 1888, p 322.
4Quoted by Rev Donald Beaton, The Free Presbyterian Magazine, vol 42, p 440.
5Works, Edinburgh, vol 10, 1862, p 222.
question arises, says Owen, “Why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, Because of their unbelief, they will not believe. But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be [a sin], then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so [if He underwent punishment for it], then why must that [sin of unbelief] hinder them, more than their other sins for which He died, from partaking of the fruit of His death? If He did not [die for that sin], then He did not die for all their sins.”6
Another question arises, To what avail is this universal atonement for those of the heathen to whom the gospel offer of salvation by faith in Christ is never given? Amyraut’s answer is that the heathen who make right use of the light of nature will receive spiritual light – an idea that is expressly denied by, for example, The Westminster Confession of Faith: “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation” (1:1).
Furthermore, says Amyraut, God has purposed to provide and offer salvation to all men on condition that they themselves repent and believe. Then there is the problem that sinners, even those who hear the gospel, are neither willing nor able to repent of their sins and believe in Christ. Amyraut’s response is that everyone has the natural ability to repent and believe. Although we cannot agree with all the views of American theologian S L Johnson, he rightly shows the absurdity of such a view when he says (in an online lecture), “Amyraldians say that Christ died for the sins of all if they believe. . . . This is the same as saying that Christ died to atone for men’s sins including unbelief, providing they would not be unbelieving, but believing. As if to say, Turretin points out, ‘I have found out an infallible remedy for the healing of a blind or leprous man, which shall be applied on this condition: that he be not blind or leprous.’”
Decree to elect some to be given faith. Amyraut also says that although everyone has the natural ability to repent and believe, that ability is disabled by their moral inability. Therefore God has further decreed to give saving grace to a certain number of people so as to secure their salvation.
Two kinds of grace. It can be seen that Amyraut’s scheme also teaches that there are two kinds of grace in God with regard to the salvation of sinners: (1) universal grace for all men, which makes it hypothetically possible for even the heathen to be saved without hearing the gospel, and (2) special grace whereby, through the gospel, the gift of faith is bestowed and
6Works, vol 10, pp 173-4.
the sinner saved. But we must of course respond: Scripture shows that there is but one saving grace, and the elect alone are recipients of it.
Two wills of God. Also in Amyraut’s theory there are two wills, purposes or decrees of God regarding the salvation of sinners: first, His universal, conditional will that all men be saved, on condition of repentance and faith, and second, His particular, unconditional will that only some people be saved. But the implication of that idea is that God’s purposes are in conflict, and that His will is frustrated with regard to those who will not believe. As Louis Berkhof says, “If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man”.7
So Amyraut’s tenet of the hypothetical universal decree of God to provide salvation for all men runs completely counter to the truth, which shows that the decree to provide salvation is one that encompasses the elect only. They alone were chosen to salvation (2 Th 2:13); therefore the salvation which has been decreed by God is decreed for no others but them.
Amyraut’s order of the divine decrees. In the order of God’s decrees about salvation, Amyraldianism puts His decree to provide salvation (by giving Christ to atone for the sins of the elect) before the decree to elect some of fallen mankind to benefit from that salvation. This reverses the orthodox order of the decrees (that of the Westminster divines and the Synod of Dort): that the decree to provide salvation for the elect is after the decree to elect certain men to salvation. Turretin says, “On this hypothesis [that is, of Amyraut], God is made to have thought of the means before the end. . . . This is repugnant to reason, for in every decree, a wise person intends the end before thinking of the means.”8 “At first view,” says Charles Hodge, “it might seem a small matter whether we say that election precedes redemption or that redemption precedes election. In fact, however, it is a question of great importance. The relation of the truths of the Bible is determined by their nature. If you change their relation you must change their nature.”9
Dual aspect of the atonement. Again Amyraldianism, in rejecting a strictly limited atonement, posits a dual aspect of the atonement – that is, says Iain Murray, “that Christ has made expiation for all, but that divine grace and election have secured that the elect only will believe. There is thus a ‘double reference’ to the atonement: a ‘conditional’ redemption for all who will believe, and an effective redemption for the elect.”10 As Smeaton says, Amyraldianism “maintains a double reference; that is, that Christ died in the
7Systematic Theology, 1971, p 394.
8Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol 1, p 424.
9Systematic Theology, vol 2, p 322.
10“Calvin and the Atonement”, The Banner of Truth magazine, issue 398.
room of some, and for the good of the rest”. Smeaton then adds, “This we can by no means concede; for Christ is never said to die for men in any other sense than in the sense of substitution or exchange of places”.11 In his Man’s Relations to God, John Kennedy of Dingwall says: “The doctrine of the double reference is an oil and water mixture; it is opposed to Scripture; no one who has subscribed the Confession of Faith can consistently hold it; it adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism; it endangers the doctrine of the atonement; and it is quite unavailing for the purpose to which it is applied.”12
We have touched on the main points of Amyraut’s erroneous theory. As we noted last month, it seemed plausible to many and had a detrimental effect on the Reformed Church in France and beyond. And sadly, in both England and Scotland the churches were not unaffected, as we hope to notice later.