Brain Armstrong, in chapter 4 of his book Calvinism and The Amyraut Heresy, describes Amyraut as warning against undue speculation concerning God’s secret will and decrees. Amyraut encouraged “modesty in the things which concern the incomprehensible counsels of God.” Instead of engaging in vain speculations, he said we ought to devote ourselves to what has been revealed. Armstrong then writes:
This book is based on Armstrong's doctoral dissertation submitted to Princeton in 1967 entitled The Calvinism of Moïse Amyraut: The Warfare of Protestant Scholasticism and French Humanism. The above quote appears on pages 180–181 in the dissertation.
I also have a copy of Roger Nicole's dissertation on Amyraut submitted to Harvard in 1966 entitled Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) and The Controversy on Universal Grace: First Phase (1634–1637). Dr. Curt Daniel sells copies of it, as well as an English translation of the 1634 edition of Amyraut's Brief Treatise on Predestination. I will be reading these two works soon.
However, important as this principle is, Amyraut was perhaps even more concerned with what he considered the dishonest exegesis of Scripture to which this methodology of beginning with the decrees of God compelled the orthodox. He was absolutely convinced that Scripture taught both a universalist design in Christ’s atonement and a particularist application of its benefits. In a striking passage, which carries with it some obvious, searching criticisms of the orthodox, Amyraut shows that Calvin unequivocally affirmed a universal design for the atonement in his commentary on II Peter 3:9. Amyraut remarks concerning this: “The confidence that Calvin had in the goodness of his cause and the candor with which he has proceeded in the interpretation of Scripture have been so great, that he had no qualms about interpreting the words of St. Peter in this manner” [Armstrong also notes that Amyraut extensively quoted Bullinger on the same passage]. This implies that the methodology of orthodoxy destroyed the candor with which one should deal with biblical texts and that orthodoxy manifested an almost neurotic fear that somehow a sacred theological system might crumble if certain interpretations were allowed. In a word, Amyraut and his friends seem to be saying that a faulty a priori methodology had produced in orthodoxy a barrier to honest historico-exegetical research.Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and The Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in the Seventeenth-Century France (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 165–168.
Again, and at least of equal importance with his desire for an honest handling of the biblical texts, is Amyraut’s apparent belief that the orthodox methodology and doctrine had destroyed the effectiveness of Reformed preaching. Again and again Amyraut returns to this theme – that “no one speaks in this manner to invite us to the Faith, ‘Believe, for God has ordained from all eternity whether or not you will believe.’” Rather, he says, we must begin by proclaiming “the great mercy of God to the human race.” The proclamation of the gospel ought not to be concerned with the determination of events by the will of God. We are simply to preach “Believe in Christ, for He is the redeemer of the world” and to remember that “this is not the time to consider whether or not He has decreed from all eternity if we would believe in this redeemer.” In preaching, the minister must faithfully set forth the universality of Christ’s work of redemption as revealed in Scripture:
One must then only fix the eyes of his spirit upon the Lord Jesus, he must concentrate all the strength of his soul upon Him, he must envisage all the aspects of this object and consider how very true He is, how very useful He is, how very necessary He is, how very worthy He is of admiration, and full of contentment, consolation and joy. In a word, how He is divine no matter what the perspective from which He is seen. This one must do so that he recognize and embrace in Him that infinite mercy which is revealed to us.
This book is based on Armstrong's doctoral dissertation submitted to Princeton in 1967 entitled The Calvinism of Moïse Amyraut: The Warfare of Protestant Scholasticism and French Humanism. The above quote appears on pages 180–181 in the dissertation.
I also have a copy of Roger Nicole's dissertation on Amyraut submitted to Harvard in 1966 entitled Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) and The Controversy on Universal Grace: First Phase (1634–1637). Dr. Curt Daniel sells copies of it, as well as an English translation of the 1634 edition of Amyraut's Brief Treatise on Predestination. I will be reading these two works soon.
1 comment:
Thanks Tony. I have two major concerns about high Calvinism. The first (and most pressing to me in my prior thinking) is the inability to honestly offer the gospel freely to all men. The ability to say "Christ died for you," is a great relief, as I have often mentioned to you. The second major concern (and more pressing to me in my present thinking) is the disingenuous hermeneutic of high Calvinism. Armstrong has touched the matter with a needle ... as did Amyraut centuries before.
Post a Comment