Double predestination, part deux

Take a deep breath and try to be objective.

Right back at you... here is the hint for you:

Some call it one thing and others call it something else. Clearly, PHIL "wouldn't glorify their position [that of so-called "four-pointers"] by labeling it Amyraldism." Why? Because 4-pointers don't have an explanation for the atonement like Amyraldist do. Thus, the title FOUR rather than FIVE, right?

Tell me Steve, why would Phil end the paragraph praising the founder Moise Amyraut saying, "Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut!" If he didn't respect him as a fellow Calvinistic scholar? And WHO is "they" if not for "so-called four-pointers."

Plus, you've yet to deal with the fact that Phil puts men like Shedd under the Supra camp when clearly his view of atonement's sufficiency for all is well established (as is Hodge's btw).

 

Well, seems to me that my viewpoints would fit within the CAL umbrella, as it is NOT just strict 5 pointers allowed in, correct?

 

Steve,

You do know that Phil is best known as one of John MacArthur's ghost writers, right?

MacArthur was once asked in a public forum what he thought of Calvinism in general and here is his reply:

Seems that MacArthur recognizes and acknowledges a healthy tension in what some espouse as "Calvinism" and true biblical theology. Do you suppose Phil and John disagree on these matters sometimes?

 

Particular Redemption addresses the L /Limited Atonement portion of the TULIP acronym & indicates LT is a misnomer (suggesting that Christs death has limited value) & this is not what any true Calvinist wants to say. Rather, Christs death on the cross is of infinite value.

Now if you study James Montgomery Boice, he states that those who will be in heaven are those for whom Christ died and those alone. He did not accomplish salvation for those who will not be in heaven, or they would be there.

 

Nope.....but your coming along. You need to understand Particular Redemption & how it fits into Gods plan of Grace.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I understand that, but there is a distinction between accomplishing salvation for every person and "removing all legal impediments" for every person, as Hodge put it.

 

You know, I dont know the 1st thing really about Hodge or the times in which he lived. But if your suggestion is correct then Im surprised he wasn't called to church discipline. Perhaps he was & then the powers that be chose not to publicize it as they would do with reckless abandon today. If I had time, Id really research it ...esp because I could get to Princeton in an hour (will bear that in mind)

 

OK, DEEP BREATH..............
Phil Johnson wrote, speaking of Amyraldism

Now what is difficult about that? Amyraldism is "4-point Calvinism" but a sophisticated way of formulating it. Notice that Johnson puts "4-point Calvinism" in inverted commas, because there is really no such thing.

Then Johnson continues

Not everone who calls himself a "4-point Calvinist" is an Amyraldian. Most folk I meet who say they are 4-pointers are actually one-pointers, and even the one point is wrong- "Once saved always saved." Amyraldism is the most God-honouring way of trying to square His sovereignty with General Redemption. Unfortunately it fails, but it is at least a good try.

So Johnson concludes

Surely this is perfectly clear? Amyraldism denies Particular Redemption and is therefore not Calvinism. However it is much more respectable and God-honouring than a lot of the stuff that goes under the false name of 4-point Calvinism but is actually Arminianism.

Steve

 

Hopefully this explaination cant be arsed up

 

So would it be true than that those of my "amy" viewpoint would actually have people lost in hell even though Jesus died for their sins, as some cals would say?

For in my mind, His death would NOT be effectually unless they were elcted by God to get Graced to believe in jesus and than it applied!

 

Just one other thing......
Johnson wrote, after describing Supra- and Infralapsarianism-

He continues-

Steve

 

Oops. No commas around four-point Calvinism that time:laugh:

You said:

 

Talk about being a "Fuss-Budget"! :laugh:

 

When was that Q&A session? It seems as if it was made more than 20 years ago.MacArthur's today would not have responded in that way. His soteriological views have evolved (for the better). Especially his understanding of 1 John 2:2 has seen development. More than 20 years ago he was against special redemption.

 

You say fuss-budget,I say fuss-bucket!

 

I understand that and agree. There is NO such thing a a real four pointer. That is Phil's point and MINE!!!!

In other words, he gives Amyraldism a place at the table but not "so-called four pointers." Why? Phil tells us:

Because they "account for an eternal decree of election (which IS consistently Calvinistic). And...

Because they are "committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty." (the Calvinistic view of sovereignty) And...

Because unlike so called "four-pointers" who can't "articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional," Amyraldists can and do have a coherent explanation as presented by the scholars I've already quoted...which you ignored again.

Even the scholars listed under the Amyraldists chart call themselves Supras under the Calvinistic model and are known and respected scholars in the Reformed tradition.

You ignore those quotes because it is abundantly clear that this is a legitimate disagreement among respected reformed scholars that you REFUSE to acknowledge because you don't want to eat crow and admit you were wrong about my representation of men like Hodge and Shedd.

But again, some Amyraldists probably go further than others on this particular point. Some may not even be considered Amyraldists because they just tweak their view of atonement by shifting the terms (i.e. Particular redemption). Did you read Shedd's quote? Would you put him under the Amyraldist category after reading that? If not, why?

 

Steve, also, if you go back through that thread you will see that I consistently argued that Hodge DID affirm a view of Particular Redemption and thus was a 5 point Calvinists. I NEVER attempted to argue that Hodge wasn't a five pointer, remember?

I simply pointed to the distinction Hodge drew regarding God's satisfaction of justice and thus the "sufficiency" of the atoning work. Shedd's quote goes into more detail. So, I really don't even know why I'm even in the position where I need to argue that the Amyraldism is a real form of Calvinism when I'm not the one who attempted to put Hodge or anyone else in that camp. You just seemed to assume that would be the camp I would put them into based upon the short limited summary comments of Phil on that chart....which he even admitted is not a complete representation of the various nuanced views.

Truth is that one can hold to a view of Particular redemption without holding to a view of limited atonement. Shedd explains that very clearly and Phil listed him and Hodge under the Calvinistic camp while knowing they hold to this distinction. Why can't you?

 

That is whats strange to me, as reading all of the different Sotierology models, do feel that I am defintly in the "Amy" "4 pointer" Camp, but why is it so hard for some "5 pointers" here to acknowledge that Many prominent theologians of DoG identified themselves within that stream of calvinism?