Bible Question:
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? |
Bible Answer: Different look............................. Amyraut saw this seeming contradiction you are speaking of and determined there were two wills of God at work--a revealed, conditional will and a secret, unconditional will. He never found a way to combine them, that we know of. It's like what we find in Scripture concerning atonement and forgiveness. Atonement is a past event being made by Christ on the cross. It is the covering or reconciliation or appeasement (Rom 5:11) made concerning God’s wrath. Forgiveness or remission of sin takes place when we believe (Acts 10:43; 26:18). It’s basically a release or deliverance of debt in this case the debt of sin. Forgiveness is based on atonement but is a second act done when a person believes on Christ. Atonement is the sufficient provision. Forgiveness is the efficient work. Anyone care to add more mud to the water? :) Steve |