Amyraldianism Questioned and Defended

At times, ministers are in the position where they have to ask for evidence from those who take a contrary position on Gospel issues.  What exactly do they know about Amyraldianism and how much of what's available in English of Amyraut's works/theology have they read?  

I'm not trying to be funny or smart, but I know from personal experience that it is so easy to criticise or disagree with another man's theological position on the basis of second-hand knowledge.  I would also be keen to know what you make of Calvin's sermons, for example, on Isa.53.  Remember Iain Campbell's point that 'if you want to know what a man believes, you read his sermons.'  

DMLJ self-defined as a man of prayer and an evangelist.  How, then, do one assess DMLJ's theology in his evangelistic sermons on Acts, Ps.51, Ps.107, Ps.1.  The Kingdom of God, etc?  Through what lenses are these sermons read?  DMLJ stated that he never preached limited atonement, only once, he admitted, and he was in great difficulty when he did so.  His wife, Bethan, confessed that she did not believe in limited atonement, and never will; and she sat under her husband's ministry more than anyone else.  

Whatever he might have said in private, I defy anyone to find in any of his published sermons where he preached on limited atonement, or particular redemption.  I find it rather inane for his 'defenders' to say that he did believe in limited atonement but did not make a lot of it.  My question is: did DMLJ suffer from a  form of theological schizophrenia?  His 'defenders' did not like that suggestion, either.  

The Doctor saw election as the one truth that guarantees the success of evangelism, as I do.  It also brings great encouragement to the believer, especially when embattled.

I think that ministers and theologians have to furnish their evidence before making statements like, "You will understand that I will disagree ... on the Amyraldian position.  I see no support for that view from Calvin or Lloyd-Jones."  If they do their homework, they will find that both these men held to the classical reformed efficient/sufficient position.

In one of his rare TV interviews, DMLJ, in contrasting his view to that of his father, said, "I turned back to the message preached by the Methodist Fathers in which I maintain is the message of the church throughout the centuries."  These men were filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the everlasting Gospel of God with power sent down from heaven.  They were true Calvinists. 

I was in the position as an assistant minister in Wellington Street of having to decide whether to go with David Brown's interpretation of one of Christ's parables about 'the world' and holding to the plain text of Scripture, and I opted for the latter, and will always do so.  I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture and feel no need for a 'majesterium' through which to interpret it.  Thank God that He speaks clearly in the Word.

I would like to know this: did the so-called Five Points of Calvinism come from the Synod of Dhort teaching?  If so, then this document teaches inter alia that Christ's death is sufficient for the whole world.  That must surely mean that were the whole world to believe in Christ as freely offered in the Gospel then Christ's death was/is sufficient to atone for the world's sins.  This is what I believe, and that makes me, I assert, a true Five Point Calvinist.  I would ask my readers, lovingly, to enquire whether or not they are 5-pointers or a 4.5 pointers!  The true 5-pointer believes that Christ died efficiently for the elect and sufficiently for the whole world.  

I think it would be true to say that WCF is fine so far as it goes; its problem is that it does not go as far as Scripture, which is sad.  Also, it is merely a subordinate standard of many reformed churches, the Scriptures being the supreme standard.  WCF and other confessional documents are good guides, but to preach only what they teach is to sell the church short, be unfaithful to Scripture, and to preach a truncated message.  E.g, there is little in it about the love of God (though the 'thing' is there in other forms) and it does not require missionary activity of the church; evangelism can be seriously curtailled because of the fact that the elect will be saved infallibly; etc. 

Are you aware that when Amyraut was being tried for heresy in 1637 at Alencon so full of direct quotations from Calvin's works was his defense that his opponents could not bring themselves to condemn him for in so doing they would have been condemning Calvin whom they respected so greatly.  What do you make of this?  Which of the two antagonists was demonstrably more faithful to Calvin - Amyraut or his extremist opponents?

These are critically important matters which lie at the very heart of the evangel, and the departure from them is evidence of the church's departure from biblical Christianity. 

I do not believe that a sinner has first of all to ascertain whether or not he is "of the elect" before he can come to Christ; Scripture does not teach that.  He just has to know himself to be a man "of the world" to be warranted to come to the Saviour, as Thomas Chalmers taught.  

I think the church needs to re-assess its doctrinal stance to bring it into line with biblical teaching and to distance it from the scholasticism of Owen, who confessed, you remember, that he would give up all his learning if he could preach the Gospel like that tinker (referring to John Bunyan).  To distance her from the majesterium of Romanism, the Reformed churches must be crystal clear about the supremacy of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice.  To refuse to reform her confessional standards according to Scripture might suggest that these standards are in reality regarded as equal to or higher than Scripture, something all truly reformed men would deprecate.  This might caused the ultra-reformed to accuse me of incipient liberalism, but I can assure than that nothing could be further from the truth.  When the Welsh Presbyterian Church altered its Confession of Faith to bring it into line with Calvin's theology, DMLJ - a Presbyterian minister until his death raised no objection whatever to this change in an Amyraldian direction.  This is not widely known, of course.

It is most gratifying to know that Thomas Chalmers, Donald Macleod and Richard Muller all agree that Amyraldianism has been and is an integral part of the reformed heritage, and not some kind of heresy that men must avoid for fear of contamination.  So to be Amyraldian is to be reformed.  Because this is all in our heritage, let us rejoice in the Lord and in His goodness.