Morning Coffee with Gomarus

Amyraldism, also known as hypothetical redemption, hypothetical universalism or sometimes four-point Calvinism, refers to a modified form of Calvinism which rejects one of the Five points of Calvinism, namely the doctrine of limited atonement in favor of an unlimited atonement similar to that of the Arminians.

Roger Nicole defines Amyraldism in this manner:

“Amyraut held that God, moved by compassion for the plight of fallen mankind, designed to save all men and sent His Son Jesus Christ as a substitutionary offering for the sins of all men and of every man — this is Amyraut’s universalism. This sacrifice is not effectual unto salvation, however, unless God’s offer of grace is accepted by man in repentance and faith, which acceptance is the fruit of God’s special grace, conferred on those only whom He has chosen — this is the hypothetical aspect of Amyraut’s view.” (Moyse Amyraut [1596-1664] and the Controversy on Universal Grace, First Phase [1634-1637], Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1966, 3-4).

Simply stated, Amyraldism holds that God has provided Christ’s atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elects those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism since it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in the application of the atonement. However, detractors like B. B. Warfield have termed it “an inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism.”

While Amyraldism is sometimes called four point Calvinism due to its rejection of the doctrine of a limited atonement, the latter term is often a self-proclaimed epithet for many who are even less consistent Calvinists than Amyraut. For instance, many so-called “four point Calvinists” (particularly the dispensational variety) not only reject the doctrine of limited atonement but also deny that regeneration must logically precede faith (a tenet of Calvinism and Reformed theology which Amyraut upheld).

Four Point Calvinism maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe.  However, this is inconsistent, for how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men alike and equally, and at the same time to declare that when He gave His Son to die, He already fully intended that His death should not avail for all men equally, but only for some which He would select.

Amyraldians also point with pride to the fact that they maintain the doctrine of election, as if that constitutes them good Calvinists, but the crux of their system hinges on its altered doctrine of the atonement. A conditional substitution is an absurdity because the condition is no condition to God, therefore they necessarily move away from a substitutionary atonement altogether, whether they realize it or not.

Christ did not die in the sinners stead, it seems, to bear his sins and purchase for him eternal life; He died rather to make the salvation of sinners possible, to merely open the way of salvation to sinners, to remove all the obstacles in the way of salvation of sinners.  Speaking of this aspect of Amyraldism, Warfield states,

But what obstacle stands in the way of the salvation of sinners, except just their sin? And if this obstacle is removed, are they not saved? . . . He did not remove the obstacle of sin, for then all those for whom He died would be saved . . . He removed then, let us say, all that prevented God from saving men, except sin; and so He prepared the way for God to step in and, with safety to His moral government, to save men. The atonement lays no foundation for this saving of men, it merely opens the way for God to save them on other grounds. We are now fairly on the basis of the Governmental Theory of the Atonement.  (B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation)

In other words, all of the substance of the atonement is evaporated so it may be given a universal reference.  In fact, we ought to readily see that stripping the atonement of its substitutionary nature is an unavoidable effect of universalizing it.  If it does no more for any man than it does for all men, it is obvious that it saves no man.  It is also obvious that it cannot be a substitutionary atonement in the true sense.  What you may find is the word substitution used in a different sense, to mean that God has accepted Christ’s death as a substitute for the punishment of sin.  This is entirely different from the Calvinistic and biblical view of substitution where Christ is the substitute for the sinner, bearing on the cross the eternal punishment due his sin, suffering the wrath of God in his stead.

For more, see Amyraldism at Theopedia.com