|
Amyraldism (or sometimes Amyraldianism, also known as the School of Saumur, hypothetical universalism,〔.〕 post redemptionism,〔.〕〔.〕 moderate Calvinism,〔.〕 or four-point Calvinism) is the belief that God, prior to his decree of election, decreed Christ's atonement for all alike if they believe, but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. The efficacy of the atonement remains limited to those who believe. Named after its formulator Moses Amyraut, this doctrine is still viewed as a variety of Calvinism in that 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." == Historical background == Hypothetical universalist teachings may be found in the writings of early Reformed theologians including Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus, Zacharias Ursinus, and Girolamo Zanchi. Several theologians who signed the Canons of Dort were hypothetical universalists.〔 quoted in 〕 Moses Amyraut, originally a lawyer, but converted to the study of theology by the reading of Calvin's 'Institutes', an able divine and voluminous writer, developed the doctrine of hypothetical or conditional universalism, for which his teacher, John Cameron (1580–1625), a Scot, and for two years Headmaster of Saumur Academy, had prepared the way. His object was not to set aside but to moderate Calvinism by ingrafting this doctrine upon the particularism of election, and thereby to fortify it against the objections of Roman Catholics, by whom the French Protestants, or Huguenots, were surrounded and threatened. Being employed by the Reformed Synod in important diplomatic negotiations with the government, he came in frequent contact with bishops, and with Cardinal Richelieu, who esteemed him highly. His system is an approach, not so much to Arminianism, which he decidedly rejected, as to Lutheranism, which likewise teaches a universal atonement and a limited election. Amyraut maintained the Calvinistic premises of an eternal foreordination and foreknowledge of God, whereby he caused all things to pass, the good efficiently, the bad permissively. He also admitted the double decree of election and reprobation, but his view on double predestination is modified slightly by his view of double election. He also taught that God foreordained a universal salvation through the universal sacrifice of Christ offered to all alike, on condition of faith, so that on the part of God's will and desire, the grace is universal, but as regards the condition it is particular, or only for those who do not reject it which would thereby make it ineffective. The universal redemption scheme precedes the particular election scheme, and not vice versa. He reasons from the benevolence of God towards his creatures; the traditional Reformed presentation of predestination, he thought, improperly reasons from the result and makes facts interpret the decrees. Amyraut distinguished between objective grace which is offered to all, and subjective grace in the heart which is given only to the elect. He also makes a distinction between natural ability and moral ability, or the power to believe and the willingness to believe; man possesses the former but not the latter in consequence of inherent depravity. It, therefore, takes an act of God to illuminate the mind, thereby engaging the will towards action. He was disposed, like Huldrych Zwingli, to extend the grace of God beyond the limits of the visible Church, inasmuch as God by his general providence operates upon the heathen, as in the case of , and may produce in them a sort of unconscious Christianity, a faith without knowledge; while within the Church he operates more fully and clearly through the means of grace. Those who never heard of Christ are condemned if they reject the general grace of providence, but the same persons would also reject Christ if he were offered to them. As regards the result, Amyraut agreed with the particularists. His ideology is unavailable, except for those in whom God previously works the condition of faith: for those who are included in the particular decree of election. Amyraut's doctrine created a great commotion in the Reformed Churches of France, the Dutch Republic, and Switzerland. Jean Daillé (1594–1670), David Blondel (1591–1655), and others considered it innocent and consistent with the decrees of the Synod of Dort, where German Reformed and Anglican delegates professed similar views against the supralapsarianism of Gomarus. But Pierre Du Moulin (Molinæus) (since 1621 professor of the rival theological school of Sedan), Friedrich Spanheim (1600–49, Professor in Leiden), André Rivet (1572–1651, Professor in Leiden), and the theologians of Geneva opposed it. Similar charges were leveled against the Puritan great, Richard Baxter, who dealt frequently with Cyrus and Peter du Moulin. In Geneva, the chief opponent of Amyraut's scheme was Francis Turretin (1623–87).〔Turretin, Francis, ''The Atonement of Christ'', Translated by James R. Willson (1978), ISBN 0-8010-8842-9.〕 Amyraut's teaching was not, however, considered to be heretical or outside the Reformed confessions by its opponents.〔, cited in 〕 The friends of Amyraut urged the love, benevolence, and impartial justice of God as well as the numerous passages in Scripture which teach that God loves 'the whole world', that he will have 'all men to be saved', that Christ died 'not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world', that 'he shut up all in unbelief that he might have mercy upon all'. On the other hand, it was objected that God does not really will and intend what is never accomplished; that he could not purpose an end without providing adequate means; God did not actually offer salvation to all; and that a hypothetical universalism based on an unlikely condition is an unfruitful abstraction. The national Synods at Alençon, 1637; at Charenton, 1645; and at Loudun, 1659 (the last synod permitted by the French government), decided against the excommunication of Amyraut but delimited his views in order to avoid further variance with historic Reformed orthodoxy. He gave the assurance that he did not change the doctrine but only the method of instruction. His opponents allowed that the idea of a universal grace by which no one was actually saved unless included in the particular, effective decree of election, was permissible. In this way hypothetical universalism was sanctioned as a permissible view, along with the particularism that had characterized historic Reformed orthodoxy, and a schism in the French Church was avoided. The literary controversy continued for several years longer and developed a large amount of learning and ability, until it was brought to an abrupt close by the political oppressions of the Reformed Church in France.〔.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Amyraldism」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|