Richard Muller on Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) and Confessional Boundaries: Part 3

Amyraut’s doctrine, although hardly a reprise of Calvin, arguably fell within confessional boundaries set by the Canons of Dort: it was never formally condemned as a heresy.

Richard Muller, “Beyond Hypothetical Universalism: Moïse Amyraut (1596–1664) on Faith, Reason, and Ethics,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches: From Henri IV to the Revocations of the Edict of Nantes, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Reformed Historical-Theological Studies, eds. Joel R. Beeke and Jay T. Collier; Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 198.

Nearly all the older scholarship went astray from the actual evidence in its assumptions that hypothetical universalism per se ran counter to the Reformed confessions—notably, the Canons of Dort—and that Amyraut’s form of hypothetical universalism, derived from the theology of his teacher, Cameron, was representative of hypothetical universalism in general.

Ibid., 205. [Note: Warfield is an example of the misguided older scholarship that involves mischaracterization and historical lumping. See B. B. Warfield, The Westminister Assembly and its Work (1959 repr.; Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 56, 144n94; The Plan of Salvation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1915), 118.]

Given that Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism did not arise out of a significantly different outlook on theology or rest on a different method from that of his Reformed orthodox contemporaries, his theology ought not to be read out of the context of that orthodoxy and its Scholastic methods—nor, indeed, ought Amyraldian or Salmurian theology to be interpreted as a heresy and set outside of the bounds of the orthodoxy of the era. Certainly, Amyraut’s detractors accused him of heresy, but there is no synodical decision or confessional document that confirmed the accusation. In short, Amyraldianism was a form of Reformed orthodoxy that other orthodox Reformed writers pointedly opposed and censured, but it remained within the confessional boundaries and partook of the same Scholastic method Amyraut’s opponents employed. 

Ibid., 208.

For more by Muller on the same, see here (part 1) and here (part 2).

Bio:
Wiki
CTS

Michael J. Lynch on “Covenant Theology and Hypothetical Universalism? A Look at John Davenant’s Federal Theology”

In December of 2015, Lynch lectured at the Junius Institute on John Davenant’s covenant theology and so-called “hypothetical universalism.” Here is the lecture:

Michael J. Lynch on “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship”

The Junius Blog has posted the following:

Earlier this year [2014] Michael Lynch, a PhD student at Calvin Theological Seminary, presented at a Junius Institute Colloquium on the topic, “Early Modern Hypothetical Universalism: Reflections on the Status Quaestionis and Modern Scholarship.

Here is the audio on YouTube:


Lynch also recently spoke at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society held on November 19-21, 2014, in San Diego, CA. His subject was "In Mediis Tutissime Ibis": An Examination of Robert Lewis Dabney's View of the Extent of Christ's Satisfaction (click for audio). He blogs here (click). Regarding his thesis, Lynch wrote:

Robert Lewis Dabney is generally regarded as the preeminent Southern Presbyterian theologian of the nineteenth century. His published writings extend to all sorts of subjects including politics, philosophy, biography, and, of course, theology. His most controversial writings from a contemporary point-of-view are those where he defended southern slavery, but in his own time he also caused quite a stir vis-à-vis the nature of imputation and Christ’s satisfaction.

At the 1863 General Assembly of the Old School (OS) Southern Church, a committee including Dabney was formed to discuss the prospect of reunion with the New School (NS) Southern Church. The OS concern against this proposed reunion was the supposed lack of doctrinal fidelity in the NS Church to Westminsterian orthodoxy. During the reunion debates, OS theologians Benjamin Palmer and A. A. Porter charged Dabney with denying confessional orthodoxy by teaching an indefinite atonement. At one point Dabney responded to Porter, “he demands that we shall say Christ was only the elect’s substitute, and bore the guilt only of the elect’s sins. We reply, show us the place where either the Bible or Confession of Faith says so.” Dabney’s writings on the nature and extent of the satisfaction demonstrate substantial disagreement with traditional OS opinion. This essay will argue that Dabney taught a middle-way position on the extent of the atonement occupying an area between that of limited satisfaction on the one hand, and the Wesleyan doctrine of universal redemption on the other.

In defense of this thesis, I will analyze Dabney’s magnum opus, Lectures on Systematic Theology, as well as his more occasional writings touching on the atonement. Chief among these occasional writings is Dabney’s argument for the plan of union between the OS and NS South—especially his defense of the plan’s doctrinal declaration in an OS newspaper, The Southern Presbyterian.

Here is Lynch’s discussion of “The Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement: What is Hypothetical Universalism?” with Javier Perdomo:



Also, here is Lynch discussing “John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism” with Edwin Báñez on Scholasticism Reformed:

Some Important Moderate Calvinist Writings

First there is James Ussher. One should first read his The True Intent and Extent of Christ’s Death and Satisfaction Upon the Cross, and then his An Answer of the Archbishop of Armagh to Some Exceptions Taken Against His Aforesaid Letter. The student would do well to start here.

Then there is John Davenant’s very important work A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, As To Its Extent and Special Benefits. It’s contained in volume 2 of his exposition on the book of Colossians. See also Michael Lynch’s excellent and improved translation of this work (John Davenant, On the Death of Christ and Other Atonement Writings, trans. Michael J. Lynch [Landrum, SC: Davenant Institute, 2024]) and his important doctoral dissertation on John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy.

Edward Polhill’s Essay on the Extent of the Death of Christ (extracted from his treatise on The Divine Will Considered in It’s Eternal Decrees, and Holy Execution of Them [2]) is also important reading. It counts as both a reaction against Owenism and against Arminianism.

Richard Baxter’s work on the Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (or here for a recent edition) should be read as well. His work does have some problems, though, and it’s not organized very well. It doesn’t surprise me that it has not been reprinted. Nevertheless, it is important, even as a response to John Owen’s Death of Death from a moderate Calvinistic perspective. In addition to his above work, one could also read this brief extract from his Catholick Theologie on “Of Universal Redemption.” For more from a Baxterian perspective, these extracts from John Humfrey’s Peace at Pinners-Hall Wish’d and Attempted in a Pacifick Paper Touching The Universality of Redemption, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, and our Freedom from the Law of Works and The Middle-Way in One Paper of Election & Redemption, as well as from his Free Thoughts are worthwhile. William Lorimer is an example of another Baxterian.

Note: The above writings by Ussher, Davenant, Polhill, and Baxter should not be considered “Amyraldism,” as they did not depend upon Amyraut, though there are definite conceptual similarities and shared historical reliance on earlier thinkers (i.e., early church fathers and early Reformers). Modern Reformed historiography, such as in Richard Muller’s recent lectures and writings (as well as Jonathan Moore’s work on John Preston), has shown that the moderate English variety of so-called Hypothetical Universalism (originally a pejorative label) is distinct from the Saumur variety, and existed prior to Amyraut, even going back to early Reformers such as Musculus, Bullinger, Ursinus, and others. With that said, if one wants to learn about the Amyraldian variety of moderate Calvinism, see the writings listed here (click).

One can consult sections from books that can be found here:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/p/the-atonement.html

And here:

http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=8466

If one wants a modern book written from a classic-moderate perspective on the extent of the atonement, then I would recommend the following:

Norman F. Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998). 

Jonathan Moore on John Owen, Henry Scudder, Edward Polhill and English Hypothetical Universalism

Although language could be very heated at times, and this controversy was deemed by many to be of the utmost importance, polemic fell short of using such emotive language, provided that a common abhorrence of, and separation from, Arminianism could still be established.¹²⁵ Indeed, those sometimes charged with being hard, harsh and obstinate on this point could sometimes prove to be most charitable in the larger context of the Puritan brotherhood. For example, it was John Owen himself who wrote a recommendatory preface in 1674 to Westminster Divine Henry Scudder's The Christians daily Walk, in which a recommendatory preface by Baxter also appeared. In this book Scudder spends a section of five pages defending a hypothetical universalist position, and in his recommendation Owen covers himself accordingly by distancing himself from some unspecified expressions in the book.¹²⁶ But his willingness to commend it warmly on the basis of the plain and practical godliness it promotes is indicative of the relative importance given to this in-house Reformed debate, at least in Post-Restoration England, even by one of the staunchest defenders of particularism.

Indeed there is even evidence that might lead one to doubt whether the later Owen would have ever republished his Death of Death without revising it in terms of its severe tone and language concerning hypothetical universalism.¹²⁷ In his recommendatory preface to English Hypothetical Universalist Edward Polhill's book on the divine decrees, of which 65 pages are taken up with a robust refutation of particular redemptionism and defense of English Hypothetical Universalism,¹²⁸ Owen ventures to express my own dissent from some of his apprehensions, especially about the Object and Extent of Redemption. Had I seen this discourse before it was wholly Printed, I should have communicated my thoughts unto him upon that Subject, and some few passages in it: but where there is an agreement in the substance and design of any Doctrine, as there is between my judgment and what is here solidly declared, it is out duty to bear with each other in things circumstantial, or different explanations of the same Truth, when there is no incursion made upon the Principles we own.¹²⁹

So by the 1670's, it was not hypothetical universalists by "Papists, Socinians, Arminians, [and] Quakers"¹³⁰ that Owen wanted to see attacked, and that from the apparently much safer vantage point of a Reformed Orthodox fortress free from the embarrassing cracks of vituperous intra-Reformed debates, and lined with a good insulating layer of warm fellowship for the godly.¹³¹
_______________
125. Davenant’s opposition to Arminian/Remonstrant theology was strenuous and extensive. Accordingly, Owen never attributed heresy to Davenant, but, on the contrary, spoke reverently of him, and especially appreciated Davenant’s treatise on justification, employing it in the 1670s in his own writings an justification and perseverance (Owen, Works, 3:218–219; 5:208, 368; 11:497). On the other hand, Owen’s chief opponent in Death of Death was an altogether different case. Unlike Davenant, Thomas Moore was unlearned and unqualified, and went far closer to Anninianism and even Pelagianism in his bold efforts to defend his system of universal redemption. This provoked sustained and open contempt from Owen and repeated charges of “abominable” or “gross error” as well as “heresies” (ibid., 10:189, 356–358, 379, 381–382, 398–399, 403, 415). Cf. the sentiments expressed in Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 1st edn, 4 vol. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:76–77, 80 and Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, 29–31.
126. Henry Scudder, The Christians daily Walk, in holy Security and Peace. Being an Answer to these Questions: 1. How a Man may do each present Days work with Christian Cheerfulness?, 2. How to bear each Present Days Cross with Christian Patience? Containing familiar Direction, shewing 1. How to walk with God in the whole Course of a Mans Life. 2. How to be upright in the said Walking. 3. How to live without taking Care or Thought in any thing. 4. How to get and keep true Peace with God, wherein are manifold Helps 10 prevent and remove damnable Presumption; also to quiet and ease distressed Consciences [...] commended to the Practice of all Professors, by Dr Owen and Mr Baxter, [1627] 11th edn (London: For Lodowick Lloyd, 1674), 331–336, Alv. Scudder’s defense of hypothetical universalism also appeared in the edition that had most likely enthused Owen as a young man (Henry Scudder, The Christians daily Walke, in holy Securitie and Peace. Being an Answer to these Questions: 1. How a Man may doe each present Daies Worke with Christian Chearfullnesse?, 2. How to bear each Present Daies Crosse with Christian Patience? Containing familiar Directions, shewing 1. How to walk with God in the whole Course of a Mans Life. 2. How to be upright in the said Walking. 3. How to live without taking Care or Thought in any thing. 4. How to get and keepe true Peace with God, wherein are manifold Helpes to prevent and remove damnable Presumption; also to quiet and ease distressed Conscences. First intended for private Use: now (through importunity) published for the common Good, [1627] 8th Corrected and enlarged edn [London: I.L. for Henry Overton, 1642], 350–357; Scudder, Christians daily Walk, 1674, Alr).
127. We have already noted above that Owen would have revised it in terms of his change of mind on the necessity of the atonement.
128. Edward Polhill, The Divine Will considered in its eternal Decrees and holy Execution of them, 1st edn (London: For Henry Eversden, 1673), 281–346.
129. Polhill, Divine Will, A6r-A6v. The other recommendatory preface to this volume was written by English Hypothetical Universalist and Westminster Divine Lazarus Seaman.
130. Ibid., A7r.
131. Soon after the Restoration, a disillusioned Owen had given up hope for a Christian unity based on confessional uniformity (Owen, Works, 14:314–315).

Jonathan Moore, "The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption," in Drawne into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Oakville, CT: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 154–156. Other material from Moore's article concerning Hypothetical Universalism and Westminster Assembly can be read here (click) and the same at the Synod of Dort here (click). Worth reading as well are Richard Muller's comments in the same book. He, like Moore, says these were "in-house Reformed debates," i.e. indicative of a plurality of trajectories within the Reformed orthodox camp.

Scudder's moderate views first appeared on this blog in October of 2007 (I know of no other source affirming him as moderate before that date), and then in David Allen's article on the atonement in 2010 in Whosoever Will (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 73–74. Moore's comments now in print regarding Scudder's "hypothetical universalism" are further vindication of our reading of Scudder's moderate position.

Frans Pieter Van Stam on the Origin of the Pejorative Label “Les Hypothetiques”

Another sign of the hardening of the conflict is the rise, a half year after the national synod of Charenton, of a designation for the adherents of Saumur that was intended to be unfavorable. The expression in question is "les hypothetiques," the "hypotheticals." In the later history of dogma the theology of Saumur would be known as "hypothetical universalism,"[72] a phrase in which the pejorative element occurs as adjective. The Reformed in France adopted the concept "les hypothetiques" as a fixed designation for the theologians of Saumur while the Swiss Reformed before 1650 described them as "universalists."[73] The term "les hypothetiques" was a reference to the problem in Amyraut's theology that on the one hand it declared that God willed to save all and on the other hand it acknowledged that this is not realized in all. Amyraut's intent was to make plain that whoever believes may rest assured that God will save him or her and has in fact elected that person. But his opponents objected that he made God's will to save all people "frustratoire." It was a reduction to absurdity of a small part of Amyraut's total point of view and the expression "hypothetical universalism" is therefore ill-suited to serve as a summary of the core of Amyraut's theology.

The term "les hypothetiques" surfaced in the available documents for the first time in a letter written by Guillaume Rivet in July 1645. He wrote his brother that he had learned from Vincent that "our hypotheticals" were unhappy with the national synod's condemnation of De la Place's ideas.[74] A few weeks later he again used the expression.[75] It occurs in three more letters from Guillaume Rivet to his brother.[76] It is probable that Guillaume Rivet was the first to employ the term as a label for the theologians of Saumur. Four months after G. Rivet had begun to use the term in the documents left us it also occurred, in a somewhat altered form, in a letter from Vincent.[77] At the end of that year it also surfaced in the Dutch Republic. Anna Maria van Schurmann employed it in a letter to André Rivet.[78] In the case of André Rivet himself the expression first occurred in a letter to Spanheim dated in May, 1646.[79] Thus the term proves to have become popular among the opponents of Saumur, enabling them to show their aversion for certain fellow believers without having to argue their case any more.
_________________
72. See for example A. Adam, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, II, Mittelalter und Reformation, Gütersloh 1968, p. 398 and R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, IV, 2. Tl., Die Fortbildung der reformatorischen Lehre und die gegenrefomatorische Lehre, 5Leipzig 1959 (Nachdruck der 3. Auflage), pp. 704ff. Seeberg distances himself from this term: "fördert das Verständnis der Absicht Amyrauts nicht," p. 704.
73. In the next chapter this will become even more evident.
74. "Vincent m’escrit aussi du mescontentement de nos hypothetiques touchant l’article de l’imputation du peché d’ Adam," see his letter dated July 9, 1645, at Leyden UB, BPL 287, II, 84f.
75. "les hypothetiques," see his letter to A. Rivet dated July 23, 1645, ibid., 86.
76. See his letters to A. Rivet dated Aug. 6, Oct. 1, and Oct. 15, 1645, ibid., 87f., 91, 92. Later, too, the expression returns in his writing, see, e.g., his letter to A. Rivet dated July 9, 1646, ibid., 112.
77. "Nous attendons l’ouvrage de Monsieur Spanheim, qui tient fort nos Hypothesites," see his letter to A. Rivet dated Nov. 4, 1645, at Leyden UB, BPL 274, 35f.
78. "Quod autem scribis Gallicanas ecclesias inter se etiamnum digladiari, et Hypotheticos conari omnem in te invidiam derivare, hinc facile collingimus diabolum nihil adeo moliri quam ut nostros inter se committat," see her letter dated Dec. 25, 1645, to A. Rivet in The Hague, KB, 133 B8, n. 46. About A. M. van Schurman, see B. L. G. N. P., part 2, Kampen 1983, pp. 396-399.
79. "Monsieur Sarrau ne me dit un seul mot de nos hypothetiques," see his letter dated May 19, 1646, at Munich Bayer. Staatsbibl., lat. 10,383, 46.

Frans Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–1650 (APA-Holland:  University Press, 1988), 277–278.

Note: This is historically quite typical. The modern label "hypothetical universalism" is not one that the Saumur theologians adopted for themselves. Rather, it was a biased label that Amyraut's staunch opponents used to describe his views. It's yet another scarecrow. As Van Stam documents, Guillaume Rivet and André Rivet (brothers) were very hostile to Amyraut, and they were constantly at work behind the scenes attempting (unsuccessfully) to manipulate the decisions of the Synod of Alençon and the Synod of Charenton so as to condemn Saumur theology. One can clearly see from the letters that their behavior was despicable, and that their claims were inconsistent. Both of these national synods exonerated Amyraut.

E. F. Karl Müller on Amyraut and “Hypothetical Universalism”

Amyraut’s doctrine has been called “hypothetical universalism”; but the term is misleading[1], since it might be applied also to the Arminianism which he steadfastly opposed. His main proposition is this: God wills all men to be saved, on condition that they believe—a condition which they could well fulfill in the abstract[2], but which in fact, owing to inherited corruption, they stubbornly reject[3], so that this universal will for salvation actually saves no one. God also wills in particular to save a certain number of persons, and to pass over the others with this grace. The elect will be saved as inevitably the others will be damned.

E. F. Karl Müller, “Amyraut, Moïse,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1908), 1:161.

My footnotes:
(1) Even though the term “hypothetical universalist” is misleading, the opponents of Amyraut will continue to use it since the point is to smear the outsiders and to scare the insiders (it’s yet another shibboleth), rather than to accurately describe things in all fairness. There are even some in the blogosphere who desperately want to appear scholarly, so they prefer to use Latin, and therefore speak of a foedus hypotheticum in Amyraut’s theology. It’s the same misleading nonsense.
(2) By “abstract,” he’s probably referencing the natural/moral ability distinction that Amyraut learned from John Cameron.
(3) This stubborn rejection points to their moral inability or willful bondage to sin.

Joel Beeke and Randall Pederson on John Davenant (1572–1641)

In their new book, Meet the Puritans, Joel Beeke and Randall J. Pederson write the following about John Davenant:

In 1618, Davenant became a royal chaplain. That same year, King James I chose Davenant along with three other delegates to represent the Church of England at the Synod of Dort. Davenant, a moderate Calvinist, took an active role in synodical deliberations. John Hales said Davenant defeated “learnedly and fully…certain distinctions framed by the [Arminian] remonstrants.” Johannes Bogerman, chairman of the synod, said that Davenant’s experience and skill in the “laws and histories” helped the delegates “better order their debates and votes.”

Regrettably, Davenant held to a “hypothetical universalism,” a mild form of universal redemption, attested to not only by James Ussher and Richard Baxter but also by Davenant’s A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, which he finished shortly after leaving Dortrecht. This treatise presents the view that Davenant defended at the synod. Ultimately, Davenant and the English delegates won synod over to the view that the debate on redemption must be worked out in terms of both sufficiency and efficiency, i.e., that Christ’s death was sufficient in terms of its intrinsic worth to save a thousand worlds, but was efficient or efficacious only for the elect. Davenant’s views went further, however, claiming that the Father and the Son had a conditional intention to save all, though that condition was not absolutely efficacious (see W. Robert Godfrey, “Tensions With International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort” [Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1974], pp. 179–88).

Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 170.

I would like to make a few observations on this entry about Davenant:

1) Davenant is rightly called a "moderate Calvinist." I would prefer to call it classical Calvinism, since I deem him to be in Calvin's own position. For more on this label, see my An Explanation of a Few Calvinistic Labels.

2) Notice the bias in the book. When introducing Davenant's redemption views, it is prefaced by the term "Regrettably." There is a desire to prescribe and not merely to objectively describe various positions in this book. The bias is also evident in their entry on Edward Polhill. They write:

The second work [in Polhill's recently republished Works (Soli Deo Gloria, 1998)], "The Divine Will Considered in Its Decrees," printed in 1673, explains the nature of God's will and the eternal decrees of election and predestination. In this treatise Polhill unfortunately argues for some form of universal redemption, much the same as John Davenant and John Preston do. John Owen, who read Polhill's work, critiqued him on this point, but still highly commended the book.

Ibid., 482.

Incidentally, it was James Ussher who, according to Richard Baxter's report of a private conversation with him, persuaded Davenant and Preston of their form of universal redemption [see Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters & Writings of John Davenant D.D., 1572-1641 (London, 1897), p. 521].

3) "Regrettably," Beeke and Pederson go on to mischaracterize Davenant's position. It is not a "hypothetical universalism." The universal aspect to Christ's death is a real universality. That is, Christ really did intend and suffer for the sins of the entire human race, according to the revealed will of God. There's nothing "hypothetical" about it. Usually this position is viewed by its opponents through some form of ordered decretalism (since they themselves adhere to ordered decretalism--either infra or supralapsarian), hence the "hypothetical universalism" description; as if God, in an antecedent decree, willed the salvation of all men through the death of Christ. But, seeing that none of them would believe, consequently decreed to save only the elect and give Christ to die for them alone. The "antecedent" decree is entirely hypothetical, which is not the way to view Amyraut, Davenant, Ussher or Baxter. For more on this, see my post on Amyraut and Ordered Decretalism. Some time in the future I will investigate Davenant's Animadversions...Upon a Treatise Intitled God’s Love to Mankind (1641. 536 pp.) to see if he adheres to a form of ordered decretalism.. Dr. Curt Daniel sells a copy of this work for $35. This work is not among those that are available online for free.

4) Again, "regrettably," Dr. Beeke and Pederson use misleading language when describing Davenant's sufficiency views. They speak of Davenant's view as saying "Christ’s death was sufficient in terms of its intrinsic worth to save a thousand worlds." An Owenist or high Calvinist has no problem affirming an infinite "instrinsic worth" to Christ's death. The point of Davenant is to affirm an EXTRINSIC (formal) or ordained sufficiency for all, since Christ really bore the penalty that was due every sinner (unlimited imputation), and not just the guilt of the sin of the elect alone (limited imputation). Davenant actually argues against a bare, material or mere instrisic sufficiency perspective. For more on that, read Davenant for yourself. See my post on Davenant's Sufficiency Distinctions. Ad fontes!

5) Also, Dr. Beeke and Pederson say that Davenant claimed that the Father and the Son had a conditional intention to save all, though that condition was not absolutely efficacious. This is true, but should not be controversial. Davenant is just affirming that God wills the salvation of all men on condition of faith. What is controversial is Davenant's willingness to call God's revealed will an "intention." Moreover, when Amyraut and others maintained that God conditionally decreed the salvation of all men, he was using the term "decree" in the legislative sense, not in the sense of God's efficacious will [For more on this, see F. P. van Stam's doctoral thesis The controversy over the theology of Saumur, 1635-1650 (Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press, 1988)]. He, therefore, was also just affirming God's universal saving will. All orthodox Calvinists affirm God's universal saving "will," but not all refer to that will as an "intention," since that term, in their view, connotes something efficacious, as with the term "purpose." I have no problem with such language since I think God acts on his revealed will by pleading with men to believe in the gospel call through his people, and even sends his Son to redeem all men sufficiently (paying their ransom price), as Calvin and Vermigli maintained. It is, as Dabney says in his Indiscriminate Proposals, an "active principle" in God's will. Davenant is no more extreme (which "goes further" seems to suggest in the quote above) or imbalanced than the early Reformers and church fathers.