libterm.com Amyraldianism presents a distinctive Reformed theological perspective, emphasizing a modified view of predestination and atonement known as hypothetical universalism. This doctrine suggests that Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, balancing God's justice and mercy. Explore the rest of the article to understand how Amyraldianism shapes key debates in Christian soteriology.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Amyraldianism | Supralapsarianism |
|---|---|---|
| Theological Origin | 17th-century modification of Calvinism, named after Moise Amyraut | Early Reformed theology, rooted in classical Calvinism |
| Doctrine of Election | Hypothetical universalism: God wills salvation for all, but elects some after the Fall | God ordains election and reprobation before the Fall |
| Order of Decrees | Postlapsarian: election follows the Fall of man | Supralapsarian: election precedes the Fall in divine decree |
| View on Atonement | Universal atonement conditionally offered to all | Limited atonement intended only for the elect |
| Philosophical Emphasis | Emphasizes God's universal love and hypothetical will | Highlights God's sovereignty and justice in predestination |
| Criticism | Seen as compromising strict Calvinist predestination | Criticized for portraying God as arbitrarily ordering salvation and damnation |
Introduction to Amyraldianism and Supralapsarianism
Amyraldianism posits a hypothetical universal atonement, asserting that Christ's redemptive work was intended for all, though its efficacy applies only to the elect, emphasizing God's conditional decree based on faith. Supralapsarianism argues that God's decree to elect some and reprobate others logically precedes the decree to permit the Fall, underscoring God's absolute sovereignty in predestination before the creation of humanity. These theological frameworks differ fundamentally on the logical order of God's decrees concerning election, the Fall, and atonement within Reformed soteriology.
Historical Background of Both Doctrines
Amyraldianism emerged in the 17th century through the work of Moise Amyraut, advocating a hypothetical universalism within Reformed theology that emphasizes God's universal will to save, preceding particular election. Supralapsarianism, developed earlier in the 16th century among Calvinist theologians, asserts God's decree of election and reprobation logically precedes the decree of the Fall, emphasizing divine sovereignty and predestination. Both doctrines reflect distinct interpretive approaches to divine election and the order of God's decrees in Reformed scholasticism, influenced by theological debates during the Protestant Reformation and subsequent confessional developments.
Core Tenets of Amyraldianism Explained
Amyraldianism centers on a modified Calvinist soteriology that proposes God's election is conditioned on faith universally available through Christ's atonement, emphasizing hypothetical universalism rather than strict particularism. It asserts that God's decree of salvation logically precedes reprobation, making Christ's atonement sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. This framework contrasts with Supralapsarianism by placing God's decree of the Fall after the decree of election, highlighting a more moderate approach to predestination and atonement.
Key Beliefs of Supralapsarianism Clarified
Supralapsarianism asserts that God's decree to elect some individuals for salvation and others for reprobation logically precedes the decree to permit the Fall of humanity. This theological position emphasizes God's sovereign will as the ultimate cause of election, viewing predestination as the initial divine act before considering human sinfulness. Clarifying key beliefs, Supralapsarianism underscores God's absolute sovereignty in ordaining both election and reprobation to manifest His justice and mercy simultaneously.
Order of Divine Decrees: A Comparative View
Amyraldianism posits a hypothetical order of divine decrees where the decree of redemption precedes the decree to elect, emphasizing universal atonement made conditionally effective through faith, followed by the election of believers. Supralapsarianism, by contrast, asserts that God's decree of election and reprobation logically precedes the decree of the Fall, highlighting divine sovereignty by ordering predestination before human sin. This comparative view demonstrates Amyraldianism's focus on conditional universal grace versus Supralapsarianism's prioritization of God's sovereign will in the logical sequence of decrees.
Perspectives on Salvation and Election
Amyraldianism teaches a form of hypothetical universalism where God's election is based on foreseen faith, offering salvation to all through Christ's atonement but applied only to believers. Supralapsarianism asserts that God's decree of election precedes the Fall, emphasizing unconditional election and limited atonement, where Christ dies exclusively for the elect. These contrasting views shape differing understandings of divine sovereignty, grace, and the extent of Christ's redemptive work in salvation theology.
Christ’s Atonement: Universal vs. Particular
Amyraldianism teaches that Christ's atonement is universal in intent, offering salvation to all humanity, though effective only for the elect who believe, emphasizing a conditional aspect based on faith. Supralapsarianism asserts a particular atonement, where Christ died exclusively for the predestined elect, highlighting the sovereign decree of election preceding the Fall. The debate centers on whether Christ's sacrifice was intended for all people universally or specifically for the elect, reflecting differing views on the order of God's decrees and the extent of atonement.
Major Theologians and Proponents
Amyraldianism, primarily advocated by Moise Amyraut, emphasizes hypothetical universalism, proposing that Christ's atonement was intended for all but applied only to the elect, with later supporters including John Davenant and certain followers at the Saumur Academy. Supralapsarianism, championed by theologians like Theodore Beza and early Calvinists, argues the logical order of God's decrees places election and reprobation before the fall of humanity, emphasizing God's absolute sovereignty and predestination. Both positions influenced Reformed theology debates, with Amyraldianism seen as a moderate alternative and Supralapsarianism representing a more strict doctrinal stance on divine predestination.
Theological Implications and Controversies
Amyraldianism posits a hypothetical universal atonement, asserting Christ's death is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, which challenges strict Calvinist predestination and offers a moderate view on God's universal salvific will. Supralapsarianism, prioritizing God's decrees of election and reprobation before the Fall, emphasizes God's absolute sovereignty and divine justice but raises complex questions about the origin of sin and divine responsibility. Theological controversies between these doctrines revolve around the extent of Christ's atonement, the order of divine decrees, and the balance between God's sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation history.
Contemporary Relevance in Reformed Theology
Amyraldianism, emphasizing hypothetical universalism, presents a more moderate view on predestination that resonates with Reformed theologians addressing modern concerns about divine justice and human responsibility. Supralapsarianism, with its strict order of decree predestining election before the Fall, upholds a high view of God's sovereignty favored in traditional Calvinist circles but faces critique for perceived determinism. Contemporary Reformed theology often negotiates between these positions to balance God's sovereignty and human freedom, impacting debates on evangelism, assurance, and God's covenantal faithfulness.
Amyraldianism Infographic
