Bible Question (short): Amyraldianism, a 3rd choice or not? |
Question (full): 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? |