It seems this is what "4-point Calvinism" can be called. Amyraldism prefers to define a universal atonement, but particular election. It does seem dangerous, however, to get away from Christ's substitutionary work on the cross. Christ died for our sins. And in the context of Romans 5:8b-9: "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." It seems those whom Christ died for are assured salvation. Then Christ died just for the elect, no?
Also interesting from the article:
"Amyraldism can be found among various evangelical groups, perhaps most notably among dispensationalists in independent Bible churches and independant Baptist churches."
2 comments:
So is this a rip on my C.H.S. comment? “Universal offer, but limited atonement.” I once saw a sign for a children's ministry at a Dispensational Baptist Church. It said "Christ died for me, if I believe". Darn dispensationalists!
Definitely not. Universal offer limited atonement sounds plausable. My question would be: atone for what? Is the atonement an enabler or efficacious/effectual grace? Is it more complicated? Is atonement the enabler and another part the effectual mover?...?
Post a Comment