Talk:Amyraldism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Calvinism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Four point Calvinism[edit]

Since Amyraldism is perhaps the most popular form of Calvinism, in the wider Evangelical world, should we add the Calvinism template here? Amyraldians very commonly think of themselves as Calvinian Calvinists (a term that I think was coined by a professor of mine - an Amyraldian). Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

True Amyraldism is Calvinistic in that it maintains the particularity of sovereign grace in election. Therefore, I have no problem including the Calvinism template, which by the way, looks good. I believe most would agree that technically it is a brand of Calvinism, even though I don't agree with it.  :-) Jim Ellis 22:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

There have been numerous edits (and I believe, improvements) since the Clean-up banner was added by User:Flex. I'm not sure what else is needed. I will wait for Flex to review and perhaps delete the banner. Jim Ellis 16:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

In the recent edits by 69.19.14.40, there seems to be some helpful, non-controversial material, but there is also a distinct bias as noted by the use of the qualifier on "Bezan Calvinism" that will need to be neutralized. I know that it has been suggested by some scholars that Calvinism, especially as it exists today, does not represent Calvin's Calvinism but Beza's expansion and modifications thereof (similar to how modern Lutheranism is supposed to have been largely mediated through Melancthon). What can we do to make this perspective more represented in the articles on Calvinism? While what we call Calvinism today is fairly accurately described by the Calvinism article IMHO, I think this viewpoint on the historical development of Calvinism certainly deserves a (preferably documented) paragraph or section in that article. --Flex 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent edits 69.19.14.40 reflect a particular POV especially with the term "Bezan" Calvinism. Also, to refer to "universal atonement similar to that of John Calvin" is a POV which is nowhere considered a concensus. While some of the recent edits are helpful, I believe some selected reversions or re-edits are in order here. Jim Ellis 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but I still think mention should be made of this alternate perspective at least in Calvinism and possibly here also. It's a minority view, but it deserves representation. --Flex 17:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a few edits addressing some of my concerns. A section on "Calvin versus Calvinism" would seem most appropriate on the Calvinism page. A brief reference here to the fact that some deny that Calvin would have supported limited atonement may be OK if fairly stated. Jim Ellis 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnote method[edit]

I just used the <ref></ref> method to insert a footnote, only to discover the other method was already in use for the existing notes. Unified note tagging method required. DFH 21:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Now done. DFH 09:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So called "weasel" eliminations[edit]

I am curious as to why the following sentence was deleted: "In recent years Amyraldism has become more popular in certain theological circles." It would be difficult to argue that this is an untrue statement. There simply has been an increase of those who hold to this view during the middle-to-late 20th century and into the 21st due in some part to the recent popularization of Barthian theology (although surely a number of other factors contribute).

I recognize why someone who held to an Amyraldian atonement would not like the statement that "Still, the majority of Reformed interpreters today would reject Amyraldism as unbiblical." However, again I think it would be difficult to argue with the validity of such a statement. Certainly, at the very least, the faculty of the various Reformed seminaries in America would be overwhelmingly against the Amyraldian view (at least the seminaries that actually still care about the atonement...for once-Reformed places like Union, Columbia, etc. these kinds of questions aren't even on the radar). In reality the only significant group of (so-called) Reformed groups who hold to this view are those of the neo-orthodox school. My understanding is that the majority of those who consider themselves Reformed do not accept many of the significant neo-orthodox theological innovations as within the bounds of Reformed theology. If you are going to make the change that you did it would seem you would have to offer evidence that what was written was untrue. Take a poll of the theologians at places like Westminster, Reformed, Covenant, Regent, or even those at a place like Gordon-Conwell that consider themselves Reformed and I think you will find this to be the case. In the meantime we should keep in mind that the Synod of Dort declared this view heretical and that ALL of the historic Reformed confessions teach a particular atonement.

Finally, why delete the statement, "Needless to say, Amyraldianism remains extremely controversial"? What is Amyraldism if not controversial?

Let's discuss this so that we can come to an agreement. In the meantime, I deleted the statement that "however, the Amyraldian version of Calvinism seems to have gained permanence as a recognised version of classic Calvinist theology." This is obviously an interpretation of the facts rather than the facts as such.

Amyraldism in 17th century England and Scotland[edit]

This needs cleaning up as it is historically untenable. The first point is that (with the possible exception of Baxter) the English (and Irish as Archbishop James Ussher was a driving force in this regard) hypothetical universalist tradition owed nothing to Amyraut as its advocates had arrived at the position before Amyraut or were Amyraut's contemporaries who had come to their position via Davenant and Ussher. Secondly, John Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury was not (as far as I can find) a student of John Cameron. Thirdly, the hypothetical universalism advocated by Edmund Calamy and others such as Lazarus Seaman and Stephen Marshall at the Westminster Assembly was the indiginous English hypothetical universalism that differed on many points to Amyraldianism (such as fundamental differences in the ordering of the eternal decrees).

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 21:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)



AmyraldismHypothetical universalism – Hypothetical universalism is a broader term than Amyraldism. RSes distinguish Amyraldian and non-Amyraldian hypothetical universalisms. "Hypothetical universalism" is also apparently more common. JFH (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Moore admits that the terms are used interchangeably by scholars of the seventeenth century. I don't think it's an accepted use of the term to use hypothetical universalism as a distinct thing that does not include Amyraldism. Muller uses "non-Amyraldian hypothetical universalism", and says in a review of Moore's book that rather than two new systems in the seventeenth century, various "non-speculative" hypothetical universalisms have always been part of the Reformed tradition. So really the article should start with Bullinger, Musculus, etc. --JFH (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no great compulsion for changing titles. Aready, it exactly identified its subject. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.