James White on Amyraldianism

The following comments occur between minutes 54:19–56:34 on The Dividing Line broadcast last Thursday, May 31st. In the context of the discussion, James White is talking to a caller about some people (self-described "four pointers") who claim to have an issue with limited atonement, but most likely have an issue with the other points as well, particularly with unconditional election. White said that these self-described "four pointers" are usually ignorant about Amyraut and what he actually believed. In other words, they're not really Amyraldians. White said:

And that's why folks who run around calling themselves four pointers who do not know who Amyraut was and cannot exactly tell you what Amyraut actually believed. That's "Amyraldianism" and that's not actually four pointism, by the way. Some people think it is, but... (Caller speaks for a moment)...Amyraldianism is not technically four pointism. There's different takes and I think Amyraldians need to be a little bit more honest in their recognition that Amyraut was not the easiest person to read, and there are different takes even on his particular understanding. But they make a concerted effort--let's give the Amyraldians this much credit--they make a concerted effort to continue to believe in unconditional election while taking a different understanding of the relationship of that decree to the sacrifice of Christ. And, you know, I don't have any problem with discussions about the fact that the sacrifice of Christ has impact outside of just the redemption of the elect. There is a cosmic sense in which God's justice is demonstrated in the sacrifice of Christ. There's no question about that, but that's not actually addressing the real issue, which is: What was the intention of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in the sacrifice of Christ in reference to the redemption of mankind? Who was united to him in his death? Where is the wrath of God propitiated? Is it propitiated in the death of the Son...ALONE? Which, I would argue, eventually leads, rather inevitably, to universalism in many forms. Or is it that Christ suffers wrath AND all unbelievers will likewise suffer wrath for the same sins that allegedly he already atoned for? That's where the issue comes in. I recognize that there are other aspects that we can talk about, but until we get that one down, I'm really not sure that we've addressed the important subject, and certainly important in regards to the perversion of those things by Roman Catholicism and the Mass and all these other things, which is why it's so very important that we really do have a solid understanding of the cross.