Carl R Trueman's gracious admission

I wish to thank Carl R Trueman for what is undoubtedly a most magnanimous statement on his part which acknowledges that Amyraldianism is considered “among the reformed,” and not in any way regarded as heretical, or outwith reformed orthodoxy.

However, I think I have to explain something here: you assert that Alan Clifford has mistaken views of the atonement. From the high orthodox viewpoint, this is probably true; but since Clifford was attempting to be faithful to Calvin’s own teaching on this central issue for Christian theology and for the Christian Gospel, I consider that he has done a very fine job at interpreting Calvin faithfully, and has rescued it from the ungrounded criticisms of both the Arminians and the high orthodox, the latter represented by Owen et al.

Further, with respect, I think you may have misunderstood Alan Clifford’s basic thesis, which was to expound Calvin on the atonement, and not the teaching of the ‘reformed’ per se, whom he, and I, regard as having departed from Calvin’s stated position, not to the point of being heretical, but to the point of representing a trajectory of Calvin’s teaching which the great Reformer would not have recognised as his own.

I think it is important that we deal fairly with what theologians state their views to be, and I am not inferring that you have done this; there is a tendency to play with words in such a way that nuances are altered, and those whose position is being criticised are made to say what they had never intended to say.

Clifford’s position is a sincere attempt at rescuing Calvin from those whom he considers to have distorted his teaching in such a way as to influence, in the wrong way, the message of the Gospel. So while he has parted company with the ‘reformed’ and with later Calvinists, he has stayed close to the Genevan Reformer, and has faithfully interpreted Calvin himself. The result: a rediscovery of authentic Calvinism.