Stephen Lewis, Moise Amyrau (1596-1664), Predestination and Atonement Debate, CTSJ 1:3 (Winter

1995) p. 5, http://chafer.nextmeta.com/files/v1n3_2predestination_and_the_atonement_debate.pdf,
accessed: Sep. 10, 2015
 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 [pp. 5-6]
 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]. [p.6]
 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. [p.6]
 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. [p.6]
 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. 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. [p.6]
 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.” [p.6]
 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. [p.6]
 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. [p.6]
 Survey of Brief Traite de la Predestination et de ses Principales Dependences (Brief Treatise on
Predestination and its Dependent Principles) [p.7]

1|Amyraldianism Notes
Amyraut and Amyraldism (source: Paul Helm, http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2015/02/amyraut-
amyraldianism.html)
 Calvin employed the distinction between the secret will of God and his revealed will…. But Calvin
did not engage in the business of ordering the decrees.
 The plural ‘decrees’ was used not to denote a plurality of different decrees, but to make possible
the making of distinctions within the one eternal decree
 Those on the Reformed side (excepting Arminius, and then, perhaps, Amyraut) who took up
distinct positions, were unanimously agreed that God’s decree was infallible, absolute, that the
decree was the secret will of God’s good pleasure, not the revealed will of his precepts.
 due the foreseen plight of the post-lapsarian human race, God’s particularistic decree followed,
the effective salvific will of God which keeps Amyraldianism within the bounds of orthodoxy in that
this is a fully monergistic, Augustinian, soteriology.
 Details of Amyraldianism can vary from person to person.
 If a man decides to buy a bag of sweets and invites his friends to take as many as they wish, he has
not failed to offer the sweets if in fact none take any, particularly so if all his friends have an allergy
to sweets.
 Support for this view of the Amyraldian position is that it was described by orthodox Reformed
theologians of that time in clearly decretalist terms

Amyraut et. Al (source: Alan C. Clifford, Calvin and Calvinism: A paper given at the Norwich Reformed
Church 7th Amyraldian Association Conference, Attleborough, Norfolk on 15 April 2009),
http://www.nrchurch.co.uk/pdf/CalvinAndCalvinism.pdf accessed: Aug 27, 2015.
 Calvin taught that Christ was offered as the Redeemer of the whole world according to God’s
‘revealed’ conditional will albeit only received by elected believers according to God’s ‘hidden’
absolute will, p.2
 Notwithstanding the rationally-challenging paradox involved, Calvin maintained the doctrines of
universal atonement and divine election side by side. Faced by clear biblical evidence for both, he
refused to tamper with the scriptural texts.
 Unhappy with this kind of dualism, Calvin’s rationalistic successor Theodore Beza deleted the
‘universal’ aspect of Calvin’s scheme in favour of limited atonement, which in turn provoked the
equally-rationalistic Jakob Arminius to delete the ‘particular’ aspect of Calvin’s scheme in favour
conditional election, p.4
 the entire Bible presents God’s dealings with mankind in both conditional and absolute terms, p.6
 There clearly is potentiality and actuality in the death of Christ. By itself, it saves no one without
the application of the Holy Spirit, Even the elect are not actually saved until the benefits of the
atonement are applied to them, notwithstanding God’s eternal purpose to do so., p.6
 As for the oft-lamented dangers of Amyraldianism, it no more inclines towards Arminianism than
Owenism does towards hypercalvinism, p.6
 the Death of Death… ultra-orthodox polemic distorts to a serious degree the beauty and balance
of the Bible’s presentation of our Saviour’s sacrifice, p.10
 First, if a universal gospel offer is to be made, what precisely is on offer if not a universally-
available redemption? Second, if Christ died only for the elect, does it not become necessary for
enquirers to discover their election before they come to Christ? Third, what are the non-elect
guilty of rejecting if nothing was ever offered to them? p.10
 It is not only that the message is for all, but that it is so because the sufferings of Christ are for all.
The co-ordinate and co-extensiveness of offering and suffering are clear in Calvin’s comments on
Romans 5: 18. ‘… Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God
without distinction to all men…’ Again in his comments on 2 Corinthians 5 (Amyraut Affirmed, p.
35), Calvin states, ‘...God was in Christ…reconciling the world [note the universality for Calvin is not

2|Amyraldianism Notes
 only at the point of application, but also at the point of accomplishment] … as he once suffered, so
now he offers the fruit of his sufferings to us through the Gospel...’ [note again the co-terminous
nature of suffering and offering]., p. 11
 Satisfaction; expiation; reconciliation; and redemption: Calvin clearly uses all these terms to express
‘benefits’ available to all but only ‘actually’ enjoyed by the elect, p.13
Advantages, p.10
 First, it provides an object lesson on how to avoid extreme reductionist hermeneutics. Theory is
ever to be the servant not the master of the textual data.
 Second, it enables us to accept plain statements of Scripture as they are without forcing them into
a theological mould, e. g. ‟world‟ = ‟the world of the elect‟ (as Owen maintains). How can
Owenites criticise Roman Catholics and the cults for tampering with the text when they do
likewise?
 Third, in keeping with God’s plain declarations, it proclaims a universal compassion for the world
without unwarranted restrictions. Thus the Owenite tendency to produce clinically-clear heads and
callously-cramped hearts is reduced. Sadly, not all Owenites are like Whitefield and Spurgeon
whose compassion exceeded their creed.
 Fourth, it is, in the best biblical sense, conciliatory. Ralph Wardlaw considered that High Calvinism
provided too easy an excuse for the Arminians to reject true Calvinism.
 Fifth, without prying into the profundities and complexities of God’s inscrutable sovereign
purposes, it enables us to pursue an uninhibited mission of mercy to a lost world. We leave the
results to God. While faith is evidence of election, present unbelief is not necessarily proof of non-
election. There is always hope for everyone we proclaim Christ to.
 Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually: and that consequentially
his intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect
only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy; which is to say, that Christ’s will was
that the sacrifice of his cross should be of an infinite price and value, and most abundantly
sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; yet nevertheless the efficacy of his death
appertains only unto the elect; ... for this was the most free counsel and gracious purpose both of
God the Father, in giving his Son for the salvation of mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, in
suffering the pains of death, that the efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the elect,
and to them only – Amyraut, p.29
Adversaries: JI Packer, Paul Helm, Ian Murray, Carl Trueman, Ian Hamilton, Richard Muller, David Gay, Joel
Beeke, Pieter Rouwendal, pp. 4-24
Allies: Augustine of Hippo, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Anglican
Reformers, Second Canon of Dort, William Twisse, John Davedant, Jean Daille, Edmund Calamy, Philip
Dooddridge, Jonathan Edwards, Joseph Bellamy, Thomas Boston, Thomas Chalmers, J.C. Ryle, Charles
Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, John Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, pp. 24-32.

Johathan Edwards – Amyraldian? By Alan C. Clifford,

http://www.nrchurch.co.uk/pdf/Jonathan%20Edwards%20Amyraldian.pdf, accessed: Aug 27, 2015.

Amyraut d.1664 (source: Demarest, The Cross and Salvation),

 Theory of hypothetical universalism, p.165
 a covenant of grace that includes universal conditional covenant and a particular unconditional
covenant, p.165
 that God willed the salvation of all (Ezek 18:23; John 3:16; 2 Pet. 3:9) on the condition that they
believe the Gospel, pp. 165-166
 God effectively creates saving faith in the elect
 Sublapsarian Calvinism / Historic Calvinism: p.193

3|Amyraldianism Notes
 “Christ died to make the atonement FOR ALL to the end that is benefits would be APPLIED TO
THE ELECT", p.193

Amyraldian (source: Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of Love)

 limits atonement by regarding it merely potential for everyone, p.73
Arminian
 atonement is general i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on the condition of faith, p.73 citing
John 3:15; 1 John 2:2
Calvinists
 atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect, p.73
 The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in
the mere extent of its significance, p.73 citing Mat. 1:21;20:28; Mk. 10:45; Tit. 2:14; Rom 5:6-10;
Eph 2:15-16; 5:25
The love of God, p.73
1. Intratrinitarian love
2. God’s love displayed in his providential care
3. God’s yearning and invitation to all human beings as he invites them and commands them to
repent and believe
4. God’s special love towards the elect
5. God’s conditional love towards his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline
1 John 2:2
 The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction”
rather than “effectively for all without exception”— for in the latter case all without exception
must surely be saved, p. 76 (see love no. 3 in p. 73)
Compromise:
 I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the
sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting,
commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the
first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ
Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible
speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first
chapter), p.77

Amyraldianism (source: Michael Horton, For Calvinism)

 it makes all men savable (Lewis Sperry Chafer), p.78
 Christ bore the sins of every person without exception, but since God knew that no one would
embrace Christ apart from the gift of faith, he elected some to receive the benefits of Christ's
Work, p.78

Amyraldians (source: Theopedia, http://www.theopedia.com/universal-atonement)

 God has provided Christ's atonement for "all alike" but seeing none would believe on their own, he
then elects those whom he will bring to faith in Christ

Amyraldus 1596-1664 (source: Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith)
 school of samaur, p. 473
 post-redemptionists *, p. 473
 ante-applicationists *, p. 473
 fourpoint Calvinists, p. 473
 Christ died for all men without exception

4|Amyraldianism Notes
  maintain at least one aspect of the divine activity looking toward the salvation of men which is
universal in design, p. 473
 Post-redemptionism: the discriminating decree to elect some men to salvation (marked by the *)
having been postponed to the fourth position in the scheme, coming immediately after the decree
to redeem men, p. 473
1. the decree to create the world and (all) men
2. the decree that (all) men would fall
3. the decree to redeem (all) men by the work of Christ
4. * the election of some fallen to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of others)
5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect
 contends for the passages that ascribe universal reference to Christ’s cross work: “all men” John
12:32; Rom. 5:18; 11:32; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; “world” John 3:16; 1 john
2:2; 2 Cor. 5:19), p.474
 because some biblical passages also clearly mentioned the fact of election, they acknowledge that
the election must be given place in the eternal plan of salvation, p. 474
 the actual execution of the divine discrimination comes not at the point of Christ's redemptive
accomplishment but at the point of the Spirit's redemptive application, p. 474

Amyraldus (source: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology)

 distinguished a twofold decree of God: p. 435
1) A decree to send Christ into the world to save all men by His atonement death on the
condition of faith in him. However, because God saw that this purpose would fail, since no one
would accept Christ by faith, He followed up the first by a second decree.
2) A decree to give a certain elect number special grace, in order to engender faith in their hearts
and to secure their salvation.

Amyraut, d. 1664 (source: Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2)

 doctrine of hypothetical redemption (universalismus hypotheticus), p.240
1) the motive impelling God to redeem men was benevolence or love to men in general, p.240
2) from this motive he sent his son to make salvation of all men possible, pp. 240-241
3) God, in virtue of a decretum universal hypotheticum, offers salvation to all men if they believe in
Christ, p.241
4) all men have the natural ability to repent and believe, p. 241
5) But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral ability, God determinied to give his
efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure this salvation, p.
241
 This scheme is liable to objections which press on both systems, p.241
 The word satisfaction is the one which for ages has been generally used to designate the special
work of Christ in the salvation of men. With the Latin theologians the word is “satisfaction,” with
the German writer, “Genugthun,” its exactly etymologically equivalent, “the doing enough.” By the
satisfaction of Christ is meant all He has done to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God
in the place and in behalf of sinners. This word has the advantage of being precise, comprehensive
and generally accepted, and should therefore be adhered to, Systematic Theology vol. 2, p.470
 There are, however, two kinds of satisfaction, which as they differ essentially in their nature and
effects, should not be confounded. The one is pecuniary or commercial; the other is penal or
forensic. When a debtor pays the demand of his creditor in full, he satisfies his claims, and is
entirely free from any further demands. In this case the thing paid is the precise sum due, neither
more nor less. It is a simple matter of commutative justice; a quid pro quo; so much for so much.
There can be no condescension, mercy, or grace on the part of a creditor receiving the payment of
a debt. It matters not to him by whom the debt is paid, whether by the debtor himself, or by

5|Amyraldianism Notes
 someone in his stead; because the claim of the creditor is simply upon the amount due and not
upon the person of the debtor, p. 470
 In the case of crimes the matter is different. The demand is then upon the offender. He himself is
amenable to justice. Substitution in human courts is out of the question. The essential point in
matters of crime is not the nature of the penalty but who shall offer. The soul that sins, it shall die.
And the penalty need not be, and very rarely is, of the nature of the injury inflicted. All that is
required is that it should be a just equivalent. For an assault, it may be a fine; for theft,
imprisonment; for treason, banishment, or death. In case a substitute is provided to bear the
penalty in the place of the criminal it would be to the offender a matter of pure grace, enhanced in
proportion to the dignity of the substitute, and the greatness of the evil from which the criminal is
delivered. Another important difference between pecuniary and penal satisfaction, is that the one
ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free, and that completely. No delay
can be admitted, and no conditions can be attached to his deliverance. But in the case of a
criminal, as he has no claim to have a substitute take his place, if one be provided, the terms on
which the benefits of his substitution shall accrue to the principal, are matters of agreement, or
covenant between the substitute and the magistrate who represents justice. The deliverance of
the offender may be immediate, unconditional, and complete; or, it may be deferred, suspended
on certain conditions, and its benefits gradually bestowed, p. 470-71
 As the satisfaction of Christ was not pecuniary, but penal or forensic; a satisfaction for siners and
not for those who owed a certain amount of money, it follows, –
1. That it does not consist in an exact quid pro quo, so much for so much. This, as just remarked, is
not the case even among men… The punishment, for the offence is something different from
the evil which the offender himself inflicted. All that justice demands is penal satisfaction is
that it should be a real satisfaction, and not merely something graciously accepted as such, it
must bear an adequate proportion to the crime committed. It may be different in kind, but it
must have inherent value.... All, therefore, that the Church teaches when it says that Christ
satisfied divine justice for the sins of men, is that what He did and suffered was a real and
adequate compensation for the penalty remitted and the benefits conferred. His suffering and
death were adequate to accomplish all the ends designated by the punishment of the sins of
men. He satisfied justice. He rendered it consistent with the justice of God that the sinner
should be justified. But he did not suffer either in kind of degree what sinners would have
suffered. In value, his sufferings infinitely transcended theirs. The death an eminently good
man would outweigh the annihilation of a universe of insects. So the humiliation, sufferings,
and death of the eternal Son of God immeasurably transcended in worth and power the
penalty which a world of sinners would have endured.
2. The satisfaction of Christ was a matter of grace. The Father was not bound to provide a
substitute for fallen men, nor was the Son bound to assume that office. It was an act of pure
grace that God attested the execution of the penalty of the law, and consented to accept the
vicarious sufferings and death of his only begotten Son. And it was an act of unparalleled love
that the Son consented to assume our nature, bear our sins, and die, the just for the unjust, to
bring us near to God.

Amyraut, 1596-1664 (source: Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology)

 wrote Eschantillon de la doctrine de Calvin touchant la predestination (1636), p.497
 argued for tripartite covenantal structure ordered around God's covenant with nature, p. 497
1) Covenant of Works with Israel; p. 497
2) Covenant of Grace between God and humanity, the covenant of grace has two parts:
(a) Conditional of universal grace - the actualization of the universal grace covenant required
the condition of faith

6|Amyraldianism Notes
 (b) Unconditional covenant of particular grace - the covenant of particular grace did not
simply call for faith; rather, in God's good pleasure, he created faith in the elect
 implies twofold will of God, whereby he wills both the salvation of all people on the condition of
faith, but he also wills the salvation of the elect by imparting faith, p. 497
 the theological conundrum of God's will having been seemingly frustrated by the fact that not all
are saved is met by the response that God only willed their salvation on the condition of faith.
Where a person has no faith, God has not willed the salvation of that person, p. 497
 positing a universal dimension to God's covenanting activity meant that Amyraut was able to
make provision for universal atonement, p. 497
 Adherents: Anglican tradition, J. C. Ryle, Charles Simeon, John Newton; D.B. Knox, p. 498
 The work of Christ, apart from its application, is coextensive with humanity and it is sufficient for
all, p. 498
 Our challenge, then, is to hold together both the sovereignty of God's predestination of the elect
and the universality of the atonement to make provision for all people. That challenge can be
successfully met if we posit that God's decree to designate Christ as Savior, logically precedes
God's decision to save the elect, p.500

Amyraldianism (source: David Wenkel, Theological Criteria For Indentification and Comparative
Analysis) CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)
 Adherents: John Bunyan (1628-1688), John Davedant, Richard Baxer, Lewis S. Chafer, Smauel
Hopkins, Heirich Heppe and Jonathan Edwards.p. 83
 Labels: Hypothetical Universalism, Dualism, Ne0-Amyraldianism, Salmurianism,
Baxterianism, Other Reformed Tradition, New Methodism, p. 84
 “the view that the atonement, though universal in its scope and therefore in harmony with
God’s antecedent decree of salvation, is effectual only in the case of the elect” – Sell’s
definition, p. 86
 “essential point then of Amyraldianism is the combination of real particularism with a purely
ideal universalism” – Karl Muller definition, p.88
 “The main proposition is this: God wills all men to be saved, on the condition that they
believe… God also wills in particular to save a certain number of persons” – Karl Muller
definition, p.88
 Though exonerated of heresy, it was the cause of turmoil and debate in its time, p. 86
 The use of the label “Amyraldianism” continues despite lack of a comprehensive definition,
p.86
 John Cameron (1579-1623) was Amyraut’s teacher, p. 91
 Relevant Timelines (p.89)
 Amyraut did not become a theology professor at Saumur till 1633
 The early orthodox period (1565-1640) with Synod of Dort (1618-1619)
 The high orthodox period (1640-1725) with Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675 as a direct
response to Saumur Academy and indirect response to the Synod of Dort but it was
rejected by both the French and Swiss parties
 Saumur Academy closed in 1681
 Philip Schaff calls the FCH 1675 as “Formula Anti-Salmuriensis” or “Anti-Amyraldensis, p.93
 John Bunyan (1628-1688) never read Amyraut’s works nor followed his personal theology are
still labeled Amyraldian, p.91
 Allan Clifford: Article 3…. Dort really teaches “limited efficacious atonement” not just “limited
atonement”, p. 93
 The CORE CRITERIA defining the AMYRALDIAN system as follows (pp. 94-95)
1. Sin affects men in such a way that it removes all moral ability regarding salvation yet
leaves all natural ability intact (i.e., understanding, will, emotions)

7|Amyraldianism Notes
 2. God, moved by an earnest love and desire to save all mankind, decided to give in ransom
His Son, Jesus Christ, who died equally for all men and makes a universal offer of salvation
to all men
3. Remission of sins and eternal life are offered to all on the conditions of faith and
repentance.
4. Christ himself, though his goodness and love, intercedes for the elect by supplying faith in
the hearts of the elect via the Holy Spirit.
5. The death of Christ satisfied God the Father for the entire human race, yet actual
reconciliation does not take place until an individual believes.

Amyraut, Moise (source: E. F. Karl Müller, New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge ed.
Philip Schaff, Vol. I: Aachen – Basilians), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01, accessed: Aug 27, 2015.
 Amyraut was specially attacked because his teaching on grace and predestination seemed to
depart from that of the Synod of Dort, by adding a conditional universal grace to the unconditional
particular, p.161
 Amyraut’s doctrine has been called “hypothetical universalism"; but the term is misleading, since it
might be applied also to the Arminianism which he steadfastly opposed.
 God wills all men to be saved, on condition that they believe—a condition which they could well
fulfil in the abstract, but which in fact, owing to inherited corruption, they stubbornly reject, so
that this universal will for salvation actually saves no one. God also wills in particular to save a
certain number of persons, and to pass over the others with this grace.
 The essential point, then, of Amyraldism is the combination of real particularism with a purely
ideal universalism.
 The read significance of Amyraut’s teaching lies in the fact that, while leaving unchanged the
special doctrines of Calvinism, he brought to the front its ethical message and its points of
universal human interest.

Amyraut, Moses (source: Philip Schaff Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Vol I. The
History of Creeds), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.ix.ii.xi.html, accessed Aug 27, 2015
 His system is an approach, not so much to Arminianism, which he decidedly rejected, as to
Lutheranism, which likewise teaches a universal atonement and a limited election, p.481
 Amyraut maintained the Calvinistic premises of an eternal foreordination and foreknowledge of
God, whereby he caused all things inevitably to pass—the good efficiently, the bad permissively,
p.481
 But in addition to this he taught that God foreordained a universal salvation through the universal
sacrifice of Christ offered to all alike (également pour tous), on condition of faith, so that on the
part of God's will and desire (voluntas, velleitas, affectus) the grace is universal, but as regards the
condition it is particular, or only for those who do not reject it and thereby make it ineffective,
p.481
 The universal redemption scheme precedes the particular election scheme, and not vice versa. He
reasons from the benevolence of God towards his creatures; Calvinism reasons from the result,
and makes actual facts interpret the decrees, p.481
 Amyraut distinguished between objective grace which is offered to all, and subjective grace in the
heart which is given only to the elect.
 He also makes a distinction between natural ability and moral ability, or the power to believe and
the willingness to believe; man possesses the former, but not the latter, in consequence of
inherent depravity, p.481
 He was disposed, like Zwingli, to extend the grace of God beyond the limits of the visible Church,
inasmuch as God by his general providence operates upon the heathen, and may produce in them

8|Amyraldianism Notes
 a sort of unconscious Christianity, a faith without knowledge; while within the Church he operates
more fully and clearly through the means of grace, p. 482
 Amyraut's doctrine created a great commotion in the Reformed Churches of France, Holland, and
Switzerland. Jean Daillé (1594–1670),923 David Blondel (1591–1655),924 and others considered it
innocent and consistent with the decrees of the Synod of Dort, where German Reformed and
Anglican delegates professed similar views against the supralapsarianism of Gomarus, p.482
 But Peter du Moulin (Molinæus, since 1621 Professor of the rival theological school of Sedan),
Frederick Spanheim (1600–1649, Professor in Leyden), Andrew Rivet (1572–1651, Professor in
Leyden)and the theologians of Geneva opposed it as a departure from the orthodox faith and a
compromise between Calvinism and Arminianism, p.482
 The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial justice of God, and the
numerous passages in Scripture which teach that God loves 'the whole world,' that he will have 'all
men to be saved,' that Christ died 'not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world,'
that 'he shut up all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all.' On the other hand, it was
objected that God could not really will and intend what is never accomplished; that he could not
purpose an end without providing adequate means; that, in point of fact, God did not actually offer
salvation to all; and that a universalism based on an impossible condition is an unfruitful
abstraction, p.483
 And his opponents were forced at last to admit that the idea of a universal grace, by which no one
was actually saved unless included in the particular, effective decree of election, was quite
harmless, p.483
 The theory of immediate imputation makes all descendants of Adam responsible for his
disobedience as participants in actu, and condemns them independently of, and prior to, native
depravity and personal transgression, so that hereditary guilt precedes hereditary sin. The theory
of mediate imputation makes inherent depravity derived from Adam, and this alone, the ground of
imputation and condemnation (vitiositas præcedit imputationem), p.485
The Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675)… is the product of scholasticism, which formularized the faith of
Calvin into a stiff doctrinal system, and anxiously surrounded it with high walls to keep out the light of
freedom and progress…
 consists of a preface and twenty-six canons or articles, which clearly state the points of difference
between strict Calvinism and Salmurianism… The doctrine of an antecedent hypothetical will or
intention of God934 to save all men on condition of faith is rejected as unscriptural and as involving
God in imperfection and contradiction. Art. 4–6. Against Amyraut,.. Art. 7–9. Against Amyraut…,
p. 488.
 Limited atonement. Christ died only for the elect, and not indiscriminately for all men. The
infinite value and inherent sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction is not denied, but the divine
intention and the practical efficiency are limited, and adjusted to the particularism of the
decree of election. Art. 13–16. Against Amyraut, p. 488.
 The external call of God through his "Word is always serious, and so far effective that it works
salvation in the elect, and makes the unbelief of the reprobate inexcusable, Art. 17–20. Against
Amyraut, who extended the vocation beyond the limits of the visible Church and the ordinary
means of grace, p. 489
 Amyraut's doctrine of three essentially different covenants—natural, legal, and evangelical, with
different degrees of knowledge and piety—is disapproved. Art. 23–25

Moise Amyraut Latin Amyraldus (source: John M. Frame, Review of Armstrong’s Calvinism and the
Amyraut Heresy. Published in Westminster Theological Journal 34:2 (May, 1972), 186-92. ),
http://www.frame-poythress.org/review-of-armstrongs-calvinism-and-the-amyraut-heresy/ accessed: Aug
27, 2015.

9|Amyraldianism Notes
  (a) that Christ atoned in some sense for the sins of every human being, (b) that nevertheless all
men are not saved, and (c) that in the final analysis it is God, not man, who determines what
persons shall be saved and which ones lost.
 But making these propositions work together in a Scripturally and logically cogent way is a task
requiring considerable subtlety of mind, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever done it better
than Amyraut, p. 186
 We avoid scholasticism by avoiding speculation concerning God’s secret counsel; we want to limit
our thought to what God has revealed; so does Amyraut, p. 187
 like Calvin and unlike the scholastics, discusses predestination, not in the context of the doctrine of
God (as an aspect of God’s secret counsel), but in the context of the application of redemption (as
an implicate of God’s historical redemptive activity), p.187
 It is a real inability, however, keeping man from doing anything good. Thus regeneration is
necessary, p.187
 The point at issue here is not whether God wants all men to be saved if they believe. (Of course he
does! 2 Peter 3:9 teaches as much!) Nor is it whether the atonement furthers this particular desire.
(Of course it does! It does legitimize the sincere offer of salvation to anyone who believes!), p.191

Amyraldism (source: Phil Johnson, http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm), Last

accessed Aug 26, 2015.
 Amyraldism (is the preferred spelling, not AmyraldIANism).
 Amyraldism is the doctrine formulated by Moise Amyraut, a French theologian from the Saumur
school. (This same school spawned another aggravating deviation from Reformed orthodoxy:
Placaeus' view involving the mediate imputation of Adam's guilt).
 By making the decree to atone for sin logically antecedent to the decree of election, Amyraut
could view the atonement as hypothetically universal, but efficacious for the elect alone. Therefore
the view is sometimes called "hypothetical universalism."
 Puritan Richard Baxter embraced this view, or one very nearly like it. He seems to have been the
only major Puritan leader who was not a thoroughgoing Calvinist. Some would dispute whether
Baxter was a true Amyraldian. (See, e.g. George Smeaton, The Apostles' Doctrine of the
Atonement [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991 reprint], Appendix, 542.) But Baxter seemed to
regard himself as Amyraldian.
 This is a sophisticated way of formulating "four-point Calvinism," while still accounting for an
eternal decree of election.
 But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point
Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any
coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I
wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to
the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are
actually crypto-Arminians.)
 H.Strong held this view (Systematic Theology, 778). He called it (incorrectly) "sublapsarianism."
 Henry Thiessen, evidently following Strong, also mislabeled this view "sublapsarianism" (and
contrasted it with "infralapsarianism") in the original edition of his Lectures in Systematic
Theology (343). His discussion in this edition is very confusing and patently wrong at points. In later
editions of his book this section was completely rewritten.
 Henry Thiessen argued for essentially this view in the original edition of his Systematic Theology.
The revised edition no longer explicitly defends this order of the decrees, but Thiessen's
fundamental Arminianism is still clearly evident.
 Most Arminian theologians decline to deal with God's eternal decree, and extreme Arminians even
deny the very concept of an eternal decree. Those who acknowledge the divine decree, however,

10 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
 must end up making election contingent upon the believer's response to the call of the gospel.
Indeed, this is the whole gist of Arminianism.

Sublapsarianism, (source: Henry Theissen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, (Revised Edition 1979), p.
104-107
 Infralapsarianism or sublapsarianism that holds the decrees in the following order:
(this view teaches limited atonement)
1) To create man
2) To permit the fall
3) To elect some of the fallen to be saved and leave others as they are
4) To provide a redeemer for the elect, and
5) To send the Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect
 This last order of the decrees seems to be most in harmony with Scripture in that it allows for
election and unlimited atonement (1 Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2), while
acknowledging its special efficacy for the elect (John 17:9, 20, 24; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29f; Eph. 1:4;
2Tim. 1:9f; 1 Pet. 1:1f):
1) To create man
2) To permit the fall
3) To provide Christ redemption sufficient for all
4) To elect to salvation and leave others as they are
5) To send the Spirit to secure the acceptance of the redemption on the part of the elect

Amyraut Timeline relevant to Calvin’s Works, accessed: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=230

 Institutes of Christian Religion 1536, 1559 (Latin)i

 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 1540
 Institutes of Christian Religion 1541, 1560 (French)
 Exposition on Jude and Commentary on 1/2 Corinthians 1542, 1546, 1556ii
 The Bondage and Liberation of the Will 1543
 Commentary on all the Epistles of Paul 1548 (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians)
 Sermons on Jeremiah 1548
 Commentary on 1/2 Timothy 1548iii
 Sermons on Acts 1549-1552
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews 1549iv, and the Epistles of Peter 1551
 Commentary on James and Titus 1550v
 Sermons on Micah 1550-1551
 Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon 1550vi
 Commentary on John, Jude, and James 1551
 Commentary on ½ Peter 1551
 Commentary on Isaiah 1551
 Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1552 - 1560
 Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God 1553
 Commentary on John 1553, 1563
 Sermons on Psalm 1554
 Commentary on Genesis 1554
 Sermons on Job 1554-55
 Commentary on Matthew, Mark and Luke 1555
 Lectures on Hosea
 Sermons on Deuteronomy 1556-1556
 Commentary on Hosea 1557

11 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
  Commentary on the Psalms 1557
 Sermons on Galatians 1557-1558
 Sermons on Ephesians 1558
 Sermons on Colossians 1558vii
 Sermons on Isaiah 53 1558
 Sermons on the Deity of Christ and other Sermons Selection, 1558, 1559 and 1560
 Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets 1559
 Lecture on Minor Prophets 1559, 1560
 Sermons on the Synoptic Gospels 1559
 Institutes of Christian Religion 1561, 1813, 1845, 1960, 2009 (English)
 Sermons on 2 Samuel 1561-1564
 Lectures and Commentary on Daniel 1561
 Commentary on Joshua 1562
 Commentary on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy 1563
 Lectures and Commentary on Jeremiah 1563 and Lamentations
 Exposition of Ezekiel 1563-64
 Commentary on the Three Gospels and Commentary on St John 1563
 John Davedant 1572-1641
 Amyraut 1596-1664
 Amyraut did not become a theology professor at Saumur till 1633
 Published “Traite dela predestination (Saumur, 1634)
 The early orthodox period (1565-1640) with Synod of Dort (1618-1619)
 Davedant wrote his Dissertation on the Death of Christ in 1627
 Amyraut published his Traité de la predestination in 1634
 National French Synod at Alencon 1637 approved
 The high orthodox period (1640-1725) with Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675 as a direct
response to Saumur Academy and indirect response to the Synod of Dort but it was rejected by
both the French and Swiss parties
 National French Synod at Charenton 1645 approved
 Westminster Confession 1648
 National French Synod at Loudun 1659 approved
 Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675
 Saumur Academy closed in 1681

From Oliver D. Crisp, Deviant Calvinism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014, Epub file.

 Just as there have been defender of hypothetical universalism in the Reformed tradition from its
inception, so there have been different versions of the doctrine. Amyraldianism is one; but there is
an earlier and distinct version that was developed by a group of Anglican divines in the early
seventeenth century, under the tutelage of Archbishop Ussher of Armagh. Perhaps the most
distinguished defender of this Anglican version of hypothetical universalism is John Davedant, the
lord bishop of Salisbury, leader of the British delegation to the Synod of Dort, p. 13
 I offer a version of hypothetical universalsm that uses Davedant’s Anglican account in his
Dissertation on the Death of Christ, an unjustly neglected piece of Reformed theology. It is usually
eclipsed by John Owen’s The Death of Death, which offers arguably the most sophisticated defense
of a definite-atonement doctrine…. Yet it is an important Reformed doctrine of the scope of
atonement that should be taken much more seriously than it is at present. Reformed theologians
have largely “forgotten” this rather different account of the scope of election and atonement,
pp.14-15

12 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
 The claim is made that if Christ’s work atones for the sin of all humanity; then those who are
damned are punished twice for their sin: once in the person of Christ, and a second in their own
person, in hell. This seems monumentally unjust. But God Is not unjust, so universal atonement
must be false. Such reasoning is often given by those defending definite atonement, and Owen’s
articulation of this objection is celebrated. However, I argue, in keeping with the nineteenth-
century American Presbyterian Robert Dabney, a well as hypothetical universalists like Davedant,
that this objection is fails. There is no good reason to think that those who are damned are
punished twice for their sin of universal atonement is true. The damned are not punished twice for
their sin if universal atonement is true. The damned are not punished at all in the first instance; it is
Christ who acts as their surety and who takes upon himself the penal consequences of their sin.
And Christ’s work not said to be effectual for the salvation of all humanity; it is only said to be
sufficient to the end conditional upon faith, in keeping with the ancient catholic dictum that
Christ’s ransom is sufficient for all humanity but efficacious only for some (namely, the elect).,
p.15.
 There are different versions of this doctrine, but they share in common the claim that the work of
Christ is universal in its sufficiency but applied to an elect number less than the total number of
fallen humanity; hence hypothetical universalism. This in turn draws on an ancient, catholic
distinction found in discussion of the scope of Chris’s atoning work that goes back at least as far as
Peter Lombard, with whom it is usually identified. This is the so-called sufficiency-efficiency
distinction. We can state it thus: Christ offers himself for all humanity with respect to the sufficiency
of his work but for the elect alone with regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only
for the predestined. The distinction is sometimes accused of being too porous to be of much
theological use, because it is consistent with both the doctrine of definite atonement (according to
which God intends the work of Christ to be only for the elect) and the Arminian doctrine (according
to which Christ dies in principle for every individual, and election depends on foreseen faith).
However, it has had a considerable vogue in medieval and post-Reformation theology—perhaps
because the terms sufficient and efficient are not given a precise scope. Be that as it may, it is
certainly a distinction that has informed historic discussion of hypothetical universalism. In fact,
one might argue that hypothetical universalism is simply the extrapolation of one obvious way of
understanding this distinction, p. 142.
 In fact, hypothetical universalism has never been repudiated by a Reformed Synod or council. The
French theologians of the Academy of Saumur, where one version of the doctrine flourished in the
seventeenth century, were never formally condemned for their views on this matter. The only
confessional symbol that does take issue with hypothetical universalism in its Saumurian guise is
the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675). But this is a late document, written in large part by the
Swiss theologian Johann Heinrich Heidegger, and its influence was short lived, it is not a
subordinate standard for any Reformed communion, and even in its criticism of the doctrine does
not label it heretical. It is not beyond the bounds of confessional orthodoxy in the Reformed
tradition. In this way, it is quite different from, say, the Remonstrant doctrines that called for the
condemnations of the Synod of Dort. The Three Forms of Unity—the Belgic Confessions, the
Heidelberg Cathecism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort—as well as the Anglican Articles of
Religion, which do have the status of subordinate standards or confession for many Reformed and
Anglican communions, are consistent with hypothetical universalism, p. 143.
 Contrary to some popular presentations on the matter, there is a no good reason to think that Dort
affirmed the doctrine of atonement that excludes hypothetical universalism. In fact some of the
most prominent delegates at the synod, including the German Reformed Martinius, and several
members of the British delegation, including its leader, Bishop John Davenant, were in favor of
hypothetical universalism. This can be seen in the relevant article of the synod, 2.8, “Christ’s Death
and Human Redemption through it,”… Clearly, this article applies the benefits of Christ’s work only
to those with faith, whom God has elected…. But this is entirely consistent with the claim that the

13 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
 work of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of all humanity in principle, though it is effectual only
for the elect who are given faith… pp.143-144
 The doctrine of Davedant and a number of other Anglican divines represents a strand of historic
hypothetical universalism, which developed in England independently of, and earlier, than the
Amyraldian version. Although it informed the theological debate in the early-modern period of the
English theology, it was not censured in synods and was not repudiated by the major post-
Reformation symbol of Great Britain after the Article of Religion, namely the Westminster
Confession, p. 144.
 There is no single doctrine of hypothetical universalism; there are different species of the same
genus... The first, which flourished prior to the second and more famous version of the doctrine,
was developed by a group of Anglican divines in the later sixteenth century, including John
Preston, Bishop John Davedant, and Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh. They stayed within the
parameters set by the supralapsarian-infralapsarian discussion of the divine decrees, adding that
Christ had died for all, obtaining a conditional salvation for those who believe in him and have his
work applied to them. Following Jonathan Moore’s recent work in this area, let us call this version
of the doctrine “English hypothetical universalism,” or just “the English version” for short, p.146
 By contrast, the second group of hypothetical universalists (commonly thought to be synonymous
with hypothetical universalism) were centered upon the French Reformed Academy at Saumur
and the teachings of the Scottish theologian John Cameron. His disciples there, a most notably
Moise Amyraut, whose name became synonymous with the Saumur doctrine, offered a revision to
the supralapsarian-infralapsarian discussion., p.146
 They claimed that God decreed the election of some human beings logically subsequent to the
decree to elect Christ the mediator of salvation; in which case the Amyraldian ordering of decrees
is something like this: creation, fall, redemption, election. This ordering of decrees was the same
as that advocated by Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants, who claimed that God elected
individuals on the basis of foreknowledge, not merely by God’s good pleasure and will. The
Amyraldians did not concede this to the Arminians. Instead, they argued that there are two
distinct phases in eternal election. The first is a decree to save all humanity by the work of Christ.
However this initial decree is ineffectual, because God sees that not all humanity will have faith. So
God decrees that some of the mass of fallen humanity who have the gift of faith will be saved
through the work of Christ…. “Scottish hypothetical universalism,” or “the Scottish version,”
because it originates with John Cameron, not his disciple Amyraut, p.147.
 Hypothetical universalism is sometimes accused of bordering on Arminianism, or even of being
Arminianism “in disguise.” As I see it, such accusations boil down to one of two sorts of objectsion.
Either x significantly overlaps y in content, so that it is easy to confuse the two positions (even if
they are formally distinct); or x is materially equivalent to y. That is, the content of x is identical of
y. Naturally, the latter claim is more worrisome. However, hypothetical universalism is not
equivalent to Arminianism and does not imply it. Nevertheless, the two views have sometimes
been confused, p.147.
 It is just not the case that hypothetical universalism has historically been the gateway from some
Reformed consensus on the scope of atonement to Arminianism. In fact, hypothetical universalism
is an ancient doctrine that predates the Reformation and that can be found in the work of a
number of early Reformed theologians as well. It is precisely this mistaken view of some primitive
orthodoxy threatened by later theological compromise that is at issue in the recent historical
literature on the topic, p. 148.
 Like the hypothetical universalists, Arminius conceived of the atonement as universal in scope:
Christ’s work is sufficient in principle for all humanity. And, like the hypothetical universalists, the
Arminians agree that the atonement is applied only to those who have faith. However, it is just
here that the two schemes diverge. Whereas the hypothetical universalists claimed that God
effectually applies the work of Christ only to those who God has eternally elected according to

14 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
 God’s good pleasure and will, the Arminians claimed that God elects those “individuals who
through the establishment means of his prevenient grace would come to faith and believe” and
persevere in the faith. In other words, the Arminian scheme allows that God’s election depends on
foreseen faith, whereas the hypothetical universalists scheme claims that God elects independent
of any knowledge of God has concerning foreseen faith, p. 149.
 In the English version of the doctrine, there is no change to the sequence of decrees as traditionally
envisaged. In fat, theologians like John Davedant conceived of hypothetical universalism as a
doctrine that sits within a conventional infralapsarian scheme. The focus is not so much on the
reordering of God’s intentions in creation and redemption to reflect a hypothetically universalist
position as it is a matter of emphasizing the relation between election and faith. The elect, in this
way of thinking, are those God provides with the gift of faith so that they can respond
appropriately to Christ’s saving work. Those for whom Christ died in principle but who are not
given the gift of faith are not reconciled to God, p.149
 Dissertatio de Morte Christi (1650) by Davedant have the following propositions or thesis, p. 150-51:
a) Universal-Atonement thesis – the death of Christ is represented in the holy Scripture as an
universal remedy, by the ordinance of God, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable
for salvation to all and every individual of mankind (Dissertation, 340-41)
b) Sufficiency-Efficiency thesis – The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of
mankind, and Christ himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, and not
by reason of mere sufficiency or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of
Christ is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds; but by reason of
the Evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of his
death, and of the divine ordination depending upon it, according to which, under the
possible condition of faith, remission of sins and eternal life is decreed to be set before
every mortal man who will believe it, on account of the merits of Christ (Dissertation, 401-
2)
c) Anti-Eternal-Justification thesis – The death or passion of Christ, as the universal cause of
salvation of mankind, hath, by the act of its oblation, so far rendered God the Father
pacified and reconciled to the human race, that he can truly be said to be ready to receive
into favour any man whatsoever, as soon as he shall believe in Christ; yet the aforesaid
death of Christ does not place any one, and least of all adults, in a state of grace, of actual
reconciliation, or of salvation before he believes. (Dissertation, 440-41)
d) Predestination thesis – the death of Christ being granted to be applicable to all men on the
condition of faith, it is consistent with the goodness and justice of God to supply or deny,
either to nations or to individuals, the means of application, and that according to the
(Dissertation, 475)
e) Effectual Atonement thesis – the death of Christ, from the special design of God the
Father, who from eternity ordained and accepted that sacrifice; and of Christ, who offered
it in the fullness of time to God the Father; was destined for some certain persons, whom
the Scripture calls the elect, and for them alone, so as to be effectually and infallibly
applied to the obtaining of eternal life (Dissertation, 516)

 The Ordination-Accomplishment objection goes like this: What God ordains, God accomplishes.
Nothing can frustrate God’s will; God always achieves the end God designs. Yet it appears, in the
hypothetical universalists view, that the goal of the salvation of fallen humanity is not achieved,
though God designs it. For if the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of all fallen human
beings and God ordains that this is the case, why is it not also efficacious for all? pp. 151-52
 The Ordination-Accomplishment - Davedant response goes like this: God ordains and intends
that the satisfaction of Christ be a means of salvation that is truly sufficient for all but conditional
upon faith. That is its sufficiency (Dissertation, 391), p. 152.

15 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
 Davedant distinguished between “mere sufficiency” and an “ordinary sufficiency” (Dissertation,
402-3)… mere sufficiency: Christ’s work has an infinite value in principle and is independent of any
intention of God in applying the work of Christ to a particular number… by contrast, an ordained
sufficiency has to do with the intention of informing the use of the particular thing.. such
sufficiency can either absolute or conditional (Dissertation, 403), p. 152.
 One motivation for adopting a hypothetical universalist argument is that it preserves the biblical
tension between those passage bespeaking a universal atonement and others that speak in terms
of a particular number of elect according to the good pleasure and will of God, p.154.
 A good case can be made for the definite-atonement doctrine on biblical grounds. But a good case
can also be made for the hypothetical universal position, p.154.
 Moral-Responsibility objection: How are those passed over by divine grace and without saving
faith morally responsible for their preterition? Davedant argues that God commonly provides
things for certain creatures that God knows will not benefit them… God provided righteousness for
Adam, knowing he would rebel and not be confirmed in his original state,… God does not love all
God’s creatures equally, because God does not provide them with equal benefits: the elect are
provided with faith for their salvation; the rest are not.. God intends to provide atonement that is
sufficient for all in a general will but confirms this in the elect by faith in a specific act of will, p.
155-156.
 It appears that Davedant’s position is equivalent to the claim that God provides an atonement
conditionally sufficient for all humanity, knowing that no human being will be able to avail him-or
herself of its benefits without faith, which is a divine gift…actually underlines the fact that this
universal-atonement does no work in getting God off the hook, so to speak. Rather it
demonstrates that God could have applied to all the saving benefits of Christ but did not, p. 156.
 God ordained that the death of God’s Son should be a ransom of such a kind that it might be
offered and applied to all human beings individualistically. Its sufficiency is conditioned upon faith.
Like that of many historic theological compatibilists, Davedant’s argument seems to turn on a
conditional analysis of human freedom.
 It looks like a significant problem for defenders of UA, such as hypothetical universalists (and
Arminians and Roman Catholics as well). For on the face of it, this means that Christ dies for the
sins of those damned to hell for the punishment of those very same sins. As with the legal doctrine
of double jeopardy, it seems monumentally unjust punishment be served for the same sins twice
over. Defenders of the DA do not face this difficulty, because they maintain that Christ dies only
for the elect. He does not actually pay the penalty for the sin of those who are damned. This is
outline, is the double-payment objection to the UA, p. 171-72.
 Those who defend UA claim that Christ actually dies for all the sins of all humanity. His death really
pays the price for the sin of the whole world. To return to our earlier distinction, according to UA,
Chris’s work is intrinsically and extrinsically sufficient for salvation. However it is efficacious only
for those who turn to Christ in faith, p. 175-176
 There are two ways to avoid this double-payment objection. The first is to opt for universalism…
Historically, the vast majority of Christian theologians have rejected universalism… That leaves the
option of restricting the scope of atonement, as per the DA. Then, Christ’s work is intrinsically but
not extrinsically sufficient for all human sin, and the atonement he accomplishes is effectually
applied only to the elect in the purposes of God, p. 176-177.
 According to Hodge, pecuniary satisfaction is a kind of a purely commercial transaction between
two parties. One example would be paying a fine for a parking ticket. It does not matter who pays
the fine, whether it is the perpetrator or someone else. What matters is that the fine is paid. The
law is blind to the question of who it is that actually hands the fine over to the relevant authorities.
Once the fine is paid, the person who has incurred the fine is no longer indebted. The transaction—
the paying of the fine—automatically remits the debt. But, says Hodge, the same conditions do
not apply to a case of what he calls forensic satisfaction. In this case, satisfaction for a debt does

16 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
 not necessarily liberate the debtor, because there is a connection between the perpetrator and the
remittance of culpability that is not present in pecuniary satisfaction and that demands
discretionary judgment, pp. 177-178.
 Hodge thinks that the atonement is an instance of forensic rather than pecuniary satisfaction. It
does not automatically release the sinner from culpability for her sin, nor does it automatically
release bring about her redemption. For if the atonement is forensic in nature, then, in addition to
its accomplishment in the purposes of God, the Holy Spirit must apply its benefits to the sinner. It
is vital to see that this distinction between pecuniary satisfaction and forensic satisfaction turns on
whether the benefits of the atonement are automatically applied to those for whom Christ dies or
applied only at the discretion of God and according to God’s purpose, p. 179

17 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s
i
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutes_of_the_Christian_Religion accessed: Aug 30, 2015.
ii
Greef, Wulfert, The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide (Westminster John Knox Press: 2008), trans.
Lyle de Bierma pp. 77-78.
iii
Ibid., p.79
iv
Ibid.
v
Ibid., pp.80-81
vi
Ibid.
vii
Ibid.

18 | A m y r a l d i a n i s m N o t e s