4 Point Calvinists

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
I found this while searching just now. Today’s conversations made me curious. It’s from Got Questions. They are 4 point Calvinists.


Amyraldism (sometimes spelled Amyraldianism) is an off-shoot of Calvinism that holds to four of Calvinism’s five points—limited atonement being the only point to be rejected. For this reason, Amyraldism is sometimes called “four-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism.” Amyraldism is named after Moses Amyraut (Moyses Amyraldus), a 16th-century French theologian who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” Some Calvinists see Amyraldism as a “liberal” form of Calvinism; others see it as an unnecessary compromise with Arminianism; still others see it as inconsistent with itself and therefore illogical.

In order to better understand Amyraldism, it is beneficial to recap what Calvinism is. Classic Calvinism centers on the so-called five points of Calvinism, which are summarized below:

1. Total Depravity – Man, in his fallen state, is completely incapable of doing any good that is acceptable to God.

2. Unconditional Election – As a result of man’s total depravity, he is unable (and unwilling) to come to God for salvation. Therefore, God must sovereignly choose those who will be saved. His decision to elect individuals for salvation is unconditional. It is not based on anything that man is or does but solely on God’s grace.

3. Limited Atonement – In order to save those whom God has unconditionally elected, atonement for their sin had to be made. God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the elect and secure their pardon by His death on the cross.

4. Irresistible Grace – The Holy Spirit applies the finished work of salvation to the elect by irresistibly drawing them to faith and repentance. This saving call of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted and is referred to as an efficacious call.

5. Perseverance of the Saints – Those whom God has elected, atoned for, and efficaciously called are preserved in faith until the last day. They will never fall away because God has secured them with the seal of the Holy Spirit. The saints persevere because God preserves them.

As mentioned above, the particular point that Amyraldism denies is the third point, limited atonement. Amyraldism replaces it with unlimited atonement, or the concept of “hypothetical universalism,” which asserts that Christ died for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Amyraldism preserves the doctrine of unconditional election even while teaching unlimited atonement this way: because God knew that not all would respond in faith to Christ’s atonement (due to man’s total depravity), He elected some to whom He would impart saving faith.

Amyraldism is somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to the extent of the atonement. Calvinism teaches that the atonement is limited to the elect; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation a reality for the elect. Arminianism teaches that the atonement is unlimited and available to all; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation possible to all, and man must exercise faith to make salvation actual. Amyraldism teaches that Christ died for all men, but God only applies this salvation to those whom He has chosen. This is related to a view held in some Calvinistic circles called “unlimited/limited atonement.”

Amyraldism seems to resolve a problem that a belief in limited atonement presents—namely, the difficulty of reconciling Calvinism with passages that teach Christ died for everyone (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2). But Amyraldism is not without its own difficulty: if Christ died for all men, then, logically, there are people in hell right now whose sins have been atoned for. Those in hell are not the elect, according to Amyraldism, so did God pass over people for whom Christ died? This is the main theological question facing Amyraldians, who respond by saying God’s salvation (through the unlimited sacrifice of Christ) is offered to everyone equally. But this salvation has a condition: faith. In one sense, God’s grace is universal—He desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9)—but, in another sense, His grace is narrowed down and applied (through election) only to those who do not reject salvation.

Amyraldism, or four-point Calvinism, is popular today among many evangelicals, including independent Bible churches, Baptists, and some Presbyterians. Four-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I found this while searching just now. Today’s conversations made me curious. It’s from Got Questions. They are 4 point Calvinists.


Amyraldism (sometimes spelled Amyraldianism) is an off-shoot of Calvinism that holds to four of Calvinism’s five points—limited atonement being the only point to be rejected. For this reason, Amyraldism is sometimes called “four-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism.” Amyraldism is named after Moses Amyraut (Moyses Amyraldus), a 16th-century French theologian who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” Some Calvinists see Amyraldism as a “liberal” form of Calvinism; others see it as an unnecessary compromise with Arminianism; still others see it as inconsistent with itself and therefore illogical.

In order to better understand Amyraldism, it is beneficial to recap what Calvinism is. Classic Calvinism centers on the so-called five points of Calvinism, which are summarized below:

1. Total Depravity – Man, in his fallen state, is completely incapable of doing any good that is acceptable to God.

2. Unconditional Election – As a result of man’s total depravity, he is unable (and unwilling) to come to God for salvation. Therefore, God must sovereignly choose those who will be saved. His decision to elect individuals for salvation is unconditional. It is not based on anything that man is or does but solely on God’s grace.

3. Limited Atonement – In order to save those whom God has unconditionally elected, atonement for their sin had to be made. God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the elect and secure their pardon by His death on the cross.

4. Irresistible Grace – The Holy Spirit applies the finished work of salvation to the elect by irresistibly drawing them to faith and repentance. This saving call of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted and is referred to as an efficacious call.

5. Perseverance of the Saints – Those whom God has elected, atoned for, and efficaciously called are preserved in faith until the last day. They will never fall away because God has secured them with the seal of the Holy Spirit. The saints persevere because God preserves them.

As mentioned above, the particular point that Amyraldism denies is the third point, limited atonement. Amyraldism replaces it with unlimited atonement, or the concept of “hypothetical universalism,” which asserts that Christ died for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Amyraldism preserves the doctrine of unconditional election even while teaching unlimited atonement this way: because God knew that not all would respond in faith to Christ’s atonement (due to man’s total depravity), He elected some to whom He would impart saving faith.

Amyraldism is somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to the extent of the atonement. Calvinism teaches that the atonement is limited to the elect; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation a reality for the elect. Arminianism teaches that the atonement is unlimited and available to all; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation possible to all, and man must exercise faith to make salvation actual. Amyraldism teaches that Christ died for all men, but God only applies this salvation to those whom He has chosen. This is related to a view held in some Calvinistic circles called “unlimited/limited atonement.”

Amyraldism seems to resolve a problem that a belief in limited atonement presents—namely, the difficulty of reconciling Calvinism with passages that teach Christ died for everyone (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2). But Amyraldism is not without its own difficulty: if Christ died for all men, then, logically, there are people in hell right now whose sins have been atoned for. Those in hell are not the elect, according to Amyraldism, so did God pass over people for whom Christ died? This is the main theological question facing Amyraldians, who respond by saying God’s salvation (through the unlimited sacrifice of Christ) is offered to everyone equally. But this salvation has a condition: faith. In one sense, God’s grace is universal—He desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9)—but, in another sense, His grace is narrowed down and applied (through election) only to those who do not reject salvation.

Amyraldism, or four-point Calvinism, is popular today among many evangelicals, including independent Bible churches, Baptists, and some Presbyterians. Four-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.
I believe that would be Ken’s position.
 

civic

Well-known member
I believe that would be Ken’s position.
And maybe Johnnybgoods soon............................. I think he said earlier he leans towards calvinism on the other points. He believes TD and PoS. Leans towards UE and IG and was on the fence about LA.

his comments below

 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I found this while searching just now. Today’s conversations made me curious. It’s from Got Questions. They are 4 point Calvinists.


Amyraldism (sometimes spelled Amyraldianism) is an off-shoot of Calvinism that holds to four of Calvinism’s five points—limited atonement being the only point to be rejected. For this reason, Amyraldism is sometimes called “four-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism.” Amyraldism is named after Moses Amyraut (Moyses Amyraldus), a 16th-century French theologian who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” Some Calvinists see Amyraldism as a “liberal” form of Calvinism; others see it as an unnecessary compromise with Arminianism; still others see it as inconsistent with itself and therefore illogical.

In order to better understand Amyraldism, it is beneficial to recap what Calvinism is. Classic Calvinism centers on the so-called five points of Calvinism, which are summarized below:

1. Total Depravity – Man, in his fallen state, is completely incapable of doing any good that is acceptable to God.

2. Unconditional Election – As a result of man’s total depravity, he is unable (and unwilling) to come to God for salvation. Therefore, God must sovereignly choose those who will be saved. His decision to elect individuals for salvation is unconditional. It is not based on anything that man is or does but solely on God’s grace.

3. Limited Atonement – In order to save those whom God has unconditionally elected, atonement for their sin had to be made. God the Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the elect and secure their pardon by His death on the cross.

4. Irresistible Grace – The Holy Spirit applies the finished work of salvation to the elect by irresistibly drawing them to faith and repentance. This saving call of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted and is referred to as an efficacious call.

5. Perseverance of the Saints – Those whom God has elected, atoned for, and efficaciously called are preserved in faith until the last day. They will never fall away because God has secured them with the seal of the Holy Spirit. The saints persevere because God preserves them.

As mentioned above, the particular point that Amyraldism denies is the third point, limited atonement. Amyraldism replaces it with unlimited atonement, or the concept of “hypothetical universalism,” which asserts that Christ died for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Amyraldism preserves the doctrine of unconditional election even while teaching unlimited atonement this way: because God knew that not all would respond in faith to Christ’s atonement (due to man’s total depravity), He elected some to whom He would impart saving faith.

Amyraldism is somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to the extent of the atonement. Calvinism teaches that the atonement is limited to the elect; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation a reality for the elect. Arminianism teaches that the atonement is unlimited and available to all; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation possible to all, and man must exercise faith to make salvation actual. Amyraldism teaches that Christ died for all men, but God only applies this salvation to those whom He has chosen. This is related to a view held in some Calvinistic circles called “unlimited/limited atonement.”

Amyraldism seems to resolve a problem that a belief in limited atonement presents—namely, the difficulty of reconciling Calvinism with passages that teach Christ died for everyone (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2). But Amyraldism is not without its own difficulty: if Christ died for all men, then, logically, there are people in hell right now whose sins have been atoned for. Those in hell are not the elect, according to Amyraldism, so did God pass over people for whom Christ died? This is the main theological question facing Amyraldians, who respond by saying God’s salvation (through the unlimited sacrifice of Christ) is offered to everyone equally. But this salvation has a condition: faith. In one sense, God’s grace is universal—He desires all to be saved (2 Peter 3:9)—but, in another sense, His grace is narrowed down and applied (through election) only to those who do not reject salvation.

Amyraldism, or four-point Calvinism, is popular today among many evangelicals, including independent Bible churches, Baptists, and some Presbyterians. Four-point Calvinism is also, essentially, the position of Got Questions Ministries, as we hold the view that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.
I would suggest that Amyraldism is Conservative Arminianism, not Liberal Calvinism; all five points are required to be a Calvinist; remember, they say the 5-Points depend on one another ;)

Arminians hold to 2-Points of Calvinism, and Amyraldism holds to 4-Points of Calvinism; so which one is more Reformed?
 
Last edited:

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
I would suggest that Amyraldism is Conservative Arminianism, not Liberal Calvinism; all five points are Calvinism...

Arminians hold to 2-Points of Calvinism, and Amyraldism holds to 4-Points of Calvinism; so which one is more Reformed?
Well it would have to be the 4 pointer. Ken is a 4 pointer right ?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
carbon and I think so but maybe @Ken Hamrick will chime in when he gets a minute.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
carbon and I think so but maybe @Ken Hamrick will chime in when he gets a minute.
Yes, he claims he much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism. Seems to believe in 4 points to some degree or another but does not agree with LA, at least not the Calvinist understanding.

which makes him, at best a modified Arminian
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Well it would have to be the 4 pointer. Ken is a 4 pointer right ?
I forget, but I don't think so. @Ken Hamrick
carbon and I think so but maybe @Ken Hamrick will chime in when he gets a minute.
Yes, he claims he much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism. Seems to believe in 4 points to some degree or another but does not agree with LA, at least not the Calvinist understanding.

which makes him, at best a modified Arminian
My ears were burning :)
While 5-pt Calvinists insist that all 5 points are necessary and 4-or-less holders are disqualified from Calvinism, let me point out that they have no trademark authority. It's my experience that people tend to call themselves whatever they want. When I was in the SBC (which I left for moving toward woke liberalism), those who were undeniably Arminians, if the terminology of history and theology are taken seriously, were defended by the label and called themselves 'Traditionalists.' But as some here said, Arminians are even 2-pt Calvinists. I think the most accurate, even if not emotionally pleasing to many, method of classifying C's and A's is by means of a spectrum. As one in the middle, I can be both a modified Calvinist and a modified Arminian--although by holding to unconditional election and that Providence meticulously carries out God's plan, I am less easily labeled an Arminian. Just for perspective, here's the spectrum chart I made in the SBC:
Expanded SBC Calvinism-Arminianism Spectrum Chart
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Well it would have to be the 4 pointer. Ken is a 4 pointer right ?
I forget, but I don't think so. @Ken Hamrick
carbon and I think so but maybe @Ken Hamrick will chime in when he gets a minute.
Yes, he claims he much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism. Seems to believe in 4 points to some degree or another but does not agree with LA, at least not the Calvinist understanding.

which makes him, at best a modified Arminian
If I remember correctly, Amyraldism holds to a conditional decree. I do not. While I argue for an atoning sacrifice that would be just as effective if a nonelect person would hypothetically believe, I also hold the absolute certainty that no nonelect person will choose to believe.

Arminians and full Calvinists both see atonement as something transacted at the time of Christ's death; so they argue over whom it was that the atonement covered. If all, then why are not all saved? and if the elect, then why do they remain under wrath until they believe? Neither makes sense. But if you see atonement as applying the blood to the sinner, then it is available to all, but strictly limited only to those who believe--and sinners remain under wrath until they are under the blood. So it is difficult to categorize my view as limited or unlimited atonement. It simply transcends the old debate.

I do hold to total depravity, but not to total inability. The sinner's inability is moral, but with a natural ability remaining. In short, what this means is that when the Bible speaks of men as unable to come to Christ, etc., it is speaking in figurative terms. It's like saying that Joseph's brothers were unable to speak peaceably to him. No one would think that they could not have spoken peaceably no mater how much they might have wanted to. It is common to express a complete lack of inclination in figurative terms of inability. Literally, they were not unable but unwilling; and this is the real inability of sinners--a complete lack of willingness.

I hold to unconditional election. God is the Master of destinies, and we must bow to Him without trying to wear the crown on our own heads.

I hold to what I prefer to call inevitable grace. It can be resisted, but it will ultimately persuade the elect to believe. I do not hold to the Calvinist & Arminian "unable/enabled" dynamic, but rather I hold to an "aversion/persuasion" dynamic of how God's grace saves sinners.

On the final point, many (especially baptists) assume that POS is pretty close to eternal security; but I have found it to be very close to the Arminian doctrine of losable salvation. So I deny POS and hold to Eternal Security (not to be confused with OSAS abuses). The idea is that a failed faith at the end was a failed faith at the beginning. And also, that we do not face, as believers, any danger of apostasy to be persevered; that such warnings presupposed that some members of the church might be nominal members who have not yet come to genuine faith, but who might yet.

As for the order of salvation, I find that the arguments for regeneration prior to faith are fighting an uphill battle against the plain reading of most of the passages; so I don't support that. I am still, after all these years, considering it, however. I like what Andrew Fuller taught about it, that regeneration only caused a man to do what he could have and should have done otherwise, but refused. Rebirth cannot be prior to faith; however, if regeneration is short of rebirth, it could be understood as an indwelling of the Holy Spirit similar to the way that He was in and with the OT saints--providing spiritual power to them but without giving them the rebirth and identification with Christ that could not happen until after Christ was crucified and resurrected.

So there it is. Good luck to anyone trying to label that as 3-pt this or 2-point that. The problem is not in how well we adhere to the points of either system; the problem is how well we adhere to the Bible. And if someone loves the truth enough and is suspicious of their own intellect enough to honestly take off their presuppositional lenses and examine them in the light of Scripture, then I don't care which side he is on or how many points he holds, I hold that one up as an example to be followed. Of course, this applies to the nonessentials only (which is what the C/A debate is).
 
Last edited:

eternomade

Well-known member
Anyone prefer the usage of "perseverance of the saints" to "preservation of the saints"? I use the latter personally.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Anyone prefer the usage of "perseverance of the saints" to "preservation of the saints"? I use the latter personally.

T - Radical Corruption
U - Unconditional Election
L - Particular Redemption
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Preservation of the Saints

So, "RUPIP"?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I hold to unconditional election. God is the Master of destinies, and we must bow to Him without trying to wear the crown on our own heads.

Unconditional election to what ?

Israel was elect

They were not all saved and in fact most were not
 
Top