biblicalthought.com

Calvinism vs Amyrauldianism: The Nature and Extent of the Atonement

“The three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind are-election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit-as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly.”

-J.I. Packer, Introduction to John Owens the Death of Death and the Death of Christ.

OT Atonement (Nature) – Atonement was the blood sacrifice of bulls and goats that was made to uphold Gods direct command found in Leviticus. The purpose of this practice was to make a payment for sin. (Lev. 4:35; 16:30)

OT Atonement (Extent) – The sacrifice that was made in the OT was specifically applied only to those whom the priest made the sacrifice.

NT Atonement (Nature) – The work that Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross as our substitute.

Propitiation is that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God, thus securing our acceptance before God. -Robert Morey

Reconciliation is that sovereign work of God the Father in Which His alienation from sinners is removed through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Reconciliation flows out of and is based upon propitiation. -Robert Morey

Redemption is that priestly work of Christ wherein He delivered us from our bondage to the Law, Sin and Satan through purchase by the ransom of His substitutionary obedience in life and death. -Robert Morey

Sacrifice (Expiation) is that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed our sin and its guilt by offering up Himself to God in our place. -Robert Morey

-Definitions taken from Robert Morey’s Studies in the Atonement.

NT Atonement (Extent)- Definitely applied only to the elect people of God who express faith in time and history.

Historic (5 point Calvinist position): Christ died a substitutionary death for those who were unconditionally elected by God the Father in order to give them free mercy and grace. The elect are the objects of His mercy; therefore the death of Christ was the sacrifice for them alone. He actually and certainly saves his people.

Amyrauldianism: Moyse Amyraut was a 17th century theologian who offered a different approach who held to the popular mantra when describing Christ’s death as “sufficient for all and only efficient for the elect. ” He is known for his critique of limited atonement.

Modified (4 point Calvinist position): Deny the fourth point (limited atonement) and uphold an unlimited view of the atonement, Differing from the Arminians in that they would say that the atonement is an extra basis of condemnation for the unbelievers because they denied the Savior who died for them. They would also say that only the elect will have the benefits of the atonement I.E. salvation applied to them.

A modern Amyrauldian interpretation: Dr. Bruce Ware proposes a limited/unlimited or multiple intentions view of the extent of the atonement that is similar to but goes beyond most 4 point Calvinist interpretations. He would agree with the five pointers that “all are not saved because God did not choose to save all.” And that “the atonement actually succeeded to secure the salvation of the elect people.” Yet he also says that Christ death was for everyone, even the non-elect. So Christ died for the unbeliever and his lack of faith is the basis for judgment.