13 Comments so far

1. cmichaelpatton on August 8, 2007 1:10 pm

   Amyraldism is Calvinism without the fifth point. They are moderate calvinists. The majority of those at DTS would be 4-point calvinists.

   It is a very defensible positions. But please note: it is not middle ground or a compromise of either Calvinism or Arminianism. It is a form of Calvinism.

2. stevemoore on August 8, 2007 2:51 pm

   Dennis,

   Which questions were you concerned about that this view answered? Just curious - I’d assume limited atonement, but was that the only aspect or were there others too?

   -steve

3. stevemoore on August 8, 2007 6:41 pm

   Michael,

   Can you recommend someone/a book that does a good job of explaining and supporting unlimited atonement from this view? (Not from the Arminian viewpoint.)

   Thanks,

   -steve

4. dennisjanet on August 9, 2007 4:38 am

   Thanks for asking Steve,

   I deny that grace is irresistible before conversion. Regeneration comes after belief/faith/repentance.

   Dennis

5. stevemoore on August 9, 2007 8:38 am

   Dennis,

   Understand - it’s one that I have wrestled with and still dont fully claim to understand. I’d probably some down more on the reformed side of things than you on this, but I can appreciate your thought process.

   I think though, in answer to your bigger question, Amyraldism may not fit your views. As I’ve read over info about it, and I think Michael has commented, it would hold to different views than you regarding irresitible grace and regeneration. Think of it like TUIP (no L for limited atonement) or TUUIP (extra U for unlimited atonement). But they’d still hold to the I - Irresistable grace.

   As such, I dont know that you’d find what you were looking for within this form of Calvanism - it seems like you may be more on the Arminian side of things based off of your comments?

   -steve

6. dennisjanet on August 9, 2007 2:48 pm

   Steve thanks for the input I had a friend ask if I had did in study of Molinism, well I hadn’t and don’t know if I need to confuse the issue any further. Have you or anyone else did any study on this?

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

   Dennis

7. stevemoore on August 9, 2007 3:07 pm

   Molinism, to me, sees to be further inline with the Arminian side of things. It tends to emphasize the libertarian free will which might be a better fit for you. I dont know if technically it is a type of Arminianism like Amyraldism is a type of calvinism, but it lines up better with what you’ve said.

   Now, having said all of that, I personally am not persuaded by Molinism - to me it seems to try and reconcile the freedom of the will and the sovereignty of God in election.

   I believe one of the “complaints” or counter arguments from the Calvinistic side would be that the concept of Middle Knowledge that Molinism is based upon is a falacious view. But, I dont know that I understand it enough to know one way or the other! ;^)

   -steve

8. stevemoore on August 9, 2007 4:19 pm

   Oh, and in that case, I’m curious what you did not agree with Roger Olson on - or more specifically, the classical Arminian position?

   I know, I’m nosey. ;^)

   Thanks,

   -steve

9. dennisjanet on August 9, 2007 4:46 pm

   I don’t know if this a disagreement or not but I believe that God does have an elect, where as I don’t think Olson does.

   I guess I really just want to be a calvinist :{)

   dennis

10. stevemoore on August 9, 2007 5:12 pm

    Dennis,

    I guess that grace is getting more and more irresistible.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist it! ;^)

    -steve

11. doctorwinters on August 9, 2007 9:18 pm

    hmmm….
    I’m having trouble seeing the significance of the difference between 4 and 5 pointers.

    4 and 5 Pointers both say that:
    –we all owe 1 million dollars (random large number)
    –God writes a check to pay this debt for some of the poor people with no money who are standing in a deep pit they can’t climb out of and can’t reach up to grab the check from God

    5 Pointers say that God writes the names of some of those trapped ones on individual checks and lifts those people out and gives them the check.

    4 Pointers say that God writes an individual check for each person in the pit with their name on it and shows it to each person in the pit. But they can’t reach the checks with their name on it. So he selects some of the trapped ones out and gives them their checks and the other checks go uncashed.

    The 5 pointers seem to have a God that is more efficient, but in the end it seems like an insignificant difference.

12. stevemoore on August 10, 2007 5:19 am

    Doc,

    I see the same thing - I’m not sure if there are more real issues at stake or not on this, which is why I was asking for references to see what points and counter points were brought up.

    -steve

13. John on May 29, 2008 8:56 am

    Wow. An actual thoughtful, respectful discussion on theology. Who knew.

    I say that endearingly, believe me. Even in supposed respectful conversations among Christians, there is an atmosphere of mistrust (at least on the topic being discussed) and of what I’d call “protectionism”, that is, protecting your position out of poor motives such as fear of what a change in thinking might do to the rest of your life (e.g. friends, work in ministry, etc.). Indeed, they can sometimes be serious concerns. That’s why I admire the participants in this conversation… for their willingness to seek out God’s truth without any form of pretense. Thank you for the example.