Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20325 | ||
I have recently been introduced to a new perspective regarding salvation and free will. It is called the "Amyraldian" perspective, and a good description of it can be found at http://members.aol.com/briangord/amyrad.htm It sounds like the basic idea is that Arminias was theoretically right and Calvin was practically right. A summary quote would be that "Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect." My question is how is this possible? The word "sufficient" means "enough to meet the needs". Therefore, if Christ's sacrifice was enough to meet the needs of sinners to gain salvation, then nothing more could be required. Conversely, if salvation requires both Christ's sacrifice AND being elected, then the sacrifice alone is not sufficient. It seems that this belief has an inherrant contradiction within itself. Does anyone have any ideas on this? |
||||||
2 | Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 20384 | ||
Response.................................... Greetings Sir! I had to look up 'Amyraldian' myself! :) I don't really see this as a third option. The basic concept behind this system of thought is still Calvinism. It moves the debate slightly, but still accepts the premise that God wills to only elect some. Concerning the phrase, "sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect", it is only contradictory is election is unconditional. If election is conditional (for instance, based upon acceptance of the atonement), then the phrase would be logically correct. To use a human analogy (which is always risky): Suppose I put a sufficent amount of money in your bank account to provide for your every need for the rest of your life. But, you never access the account. You go through life without enough, even though there are sufficent funds to provide for you at your disposal. This is my understanding of the universal sufficency of the atonement. It is "enough" to save everyone, but it must be received. p.s. - Who came up with the names for the different orders of decrees anyway? Couldn't they have used easier names? :) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20680 | ||
Personal Note .................................. Dear Tim, Yes, I agree that the names they come up with for these things are not entirely helpful or easy :) I see your point about how the contradiction could be explained by a conditional election. However, I don't think that the Amyraldian viewpoint would support that type of election. Therefore, the contradiction seems to still be there. Hopefully someone else (perhaps Steve, who I think identifies with this perspective) will be able to explain this. |
||||||