Amyraldism vs. Four-Point Calvinism

I've been musing about the idea of Limited Atonement, and there are a few posts that I intend to write about it. In preperation though, I would like to make a point about a distinction which I see between what is known as four-point Calvinism and the classic view called Amyraldism.

Both of these views are a form of Calvinism which rejects the Dortian view that the atonement is limited. Indeed, if one merely considers them by what they affirm and don't affirm from TULIP, then they would be considered the same thing, or at least one being a type of the other. However, I think that there is a difference between Amyraldism and what is currently referred to as five point Calvinism.

The distinction lies in the character of the views. Four point Calvinists are essentially people who have been convinced of Calvinism, and embrace the label passionately, but recognize that the doctrine of limited atonement is completely and utterly contradictory to Scripture. So therefore they reject it, and merely affirm the opposite.

Amyraldism though is based on the beliefs of Moses Amyraut, and who had attempted to fully integrate a general atonement theory in with Calvinist teaching. Amyraut felt that he was following the beliefs of Calvin himself, and there are many who believe that Calvin did in fact teach a general view of the atonement.

...it is at least interesting to note that John Calvin himself did not believe in this doctrine [Limited Atonement]. In 1979 researcher R. T. Kendall (b. 1935) published a powerful argument that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement: Calvin and English CAlvinism to 1649. -Roger Olson, Against Calvinist, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 145.

Because of this, we can see a big difference from the common Four-point Calvinist and the Amyraldian: one is a pragmatically formed view which is unconcerned with logical consistency, while the other is a carefully articulated theological view.

This brings us to another distinction. Amyraut integrated a general atonement by use of high decretal theology. I'll explain this fuller next week, but today it suffices to say that decretal theology involves technical theological languages which is not used by the average person. Therefore, for most Calvinist laymen, Amyraldism is rather inaccessible, or at least requires additional intentional study. On the other hand, anyone who understands what TULIP is can appreciate four-point Calvinism. You merely drop the 'L'!

In summary, while one may simply see Amyraldism a form of four-point Calvinism, I think four-point Calvinism can be considered a distinct phenomenon, where Amyraldism is a careful and technical articulated position, four-point Calvinism is a guileless attempt to be biblical while holding to Calvinist teaching. Where Amyraldism can be admired for its sophistication, four-point Calvinism can be admired for its honesty and naivete.

Next week, I'll be looking more exactly at what Amyraldism is, and after that we'll start talking about their true value in theology, and how they relate to Calvinism and Arminianism.

Reflections on Fatherhood: My How They Grow

| | | \ | / V

It is amazing that in only 16 months, Marty has gone from being the size of my head, to being the size of my torso. Where before, we were excited when he learned to hold up his own head, now we are having trouble stopping him from climbing on to the arms of the couch... starting from the floor. He used to only cry. Now we have counted 34 words. It is incredible how fast he is growing.

Now I know everyone always says that, but there's a reason for it! I mean, holy cow in India, where has the time gone?! He is looking less and less like a baby and more and more like a boy. It simply boggles my mind.

I wonder what the passage of time feels like to him. I remember when I was a kid, a year was such a long period of time. Now years pass by the way a month used to. I wonder if the passage of a day for him is like a passage of a month. It would be a similar kind of percentage of our lives.

Anyway, I'm probably just rambling. I really just enjoying watching my son grow.

Molinism, Calvinism, and I Corinthians

I just finished Dr. Olson's book Against Calvinism (It is really difficult to find time to read when you have a one year old). In appendix 1, Dr. Olson goes over several attempts by Calvinists to protect God's character despite their theology. One particular argument caught my eye: the use of middle knowledge.
Roger Olson explains:

Molinism... is the belief that God possesses "middle knowledge" -- knowledge of what any creature would do freely in any possible set of circumstances. The creature may possess libertarian freedom -- freedom not compatible with determinism and able to do other than it does -- but God knows what he or she wold do with that ability in an conceivable situation. [Roger Olson, Against Calvinism, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011), 184]

Molinism wasn't originally conceived to support Calvinism, but Semiaugustian (which similar to Arminianism). However, some Calvinists have attempted to use it nonetheless. Again Olson explains:

In order to assure that the sin God wants to happen does happen without him being its direct cause of responsible for it (in a guilty sense), God simply places the creature in a situation where he knows the creature will develop a controlling motive of his own accord and act sinfully out of it. [Ibid]

None of this is new to me. Olson does a very good job of explaining why this concept doesn't work (essentially no matter how much space you put between the cause and the effect, if the cause makes the effect definite, it is culpable). Still, as I was reading this I remembered this verse:

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. -1 Corinthians 10:13

This is exactly the opposite of what a Molinist Calvinist claims. According to Scripture, God will never tempt you beyond what you are capable of resisting. According to the Molinist Calvinist, God determines the limits of what you are capable of resisting, and then intentionally tempts you in that exact way, when that sin would be for His glory of course.

I wonder how regular Calvinism would deal with this verse as well. The very fact God always provides a way of escape strongly implies, if not describes, the concept of contrary choice (i.e. libertarian free will): the capacity to have done other than what you actually do. If God forces you to sin (and yes Calvinists, I said "force". Just own it), then how does He also give you a way out? I don't think it makes sense.

Valeity

This week, I am just feeling a sense of valeity about writing something. Sorry.

Why Are You Defending The Rich?

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

Obama's Big Blunder

By this point everyone knows about Obama's blunder regarding telling entrepreneurs that they aren't really responsible (or merely partially responsible) for their businesses. Now, I get what the president meant, so please do not try to correct me on that. His point was that businesses are reliant on public services in order to build their business, and are, to some degree, dependant on the government.

However, even with the necessary qualifications, I still am in stark disagreement with the president's point. Not only do businesses and the wealthy already pay more in taxes than other groups in this country (something that Obama consistently ignores in his rhetoric), and not only to non-entrepreneurs have access to the same public services (of the same class of course), but I don't believe that there would be no success for entrepreneurs either without infrastructure.

It is not as if there were no businesses or leadership before the invention of infrastructure. It was of a much different form, but so was success. Infrastructure makes communities larger, and thus adds layers of success, but there was still success. Individuals in nomadic societies still could succeed, and create new positions and ways of doing things. So while the entrepreneurial spirit may use infrastructure, and while infrastructure can encourage it, it does not require the infrastructure.

At least, that's my opinion

Billy Birch Is Back

Billy Birch is a guy whose blog I've been following for some time, and someone who used to be a member of SEA. For those of us on the theological blogsphere, he is very well known. It is also well known that he committed a terrible sin a few months ago, shortly after he had left SEA in fact.

Well now he has a new blog: White Picket Fences. On it he talks about what he had done and why. I think it best if you read his own account. Personally, I find it very encouraging how much forgiveness he has recieved, even the one he hurt.

One important thing is that he idenifies the fundamental reason why he sinned: he kept his temptations a secret. This is incredibly powerful. In his book Celebration of Discipline, Richard Foster identifies confession is one of the fundamental disciplines of Christian life. God designed the Christian walk to function as a community where we hold each other up, and defend each other. This includes defending each other from our own sins.

If you are struggling with a sin in your life, don't make Billy's mistake: confess it. Have your brothers and sisters in the Lord hold you accountable for what you do, and what you think. It is the most powerful way to stave off sin.