Amyraldianism: Theological Criteria for Identification and

Comparative Analysis
by David Wenkel
Abstract: Historians and theologians have made mutually exclusive claims
about the soteriology of several post-Reformation protestants. The task of this
article is to examine the different labels used for those of the Calvinist
tradition who fall under the category of Amyraldianism. This paper seeks to
relate Amyraldianism to Calvinism in a more precise way. First, current
definitions of Amyraldianism are evaluated for differentiation and scope.
Next, Amyraldianism is considered as a theological system rather than as the
theology of Moise Amyraut alone. Finally, a set of historically sensitive
criteria is offered for identifying Amyraldianism as a system.
Introduction
Just what exactly Calvinism includes becomes a pertinent question in
light of the number of theologians and pastors who are said to have held to a
nuance of Calvinism typically called Amyraldianism. This is of interest to
both Dispensational and Reformed camps because the list includes, but is not
limited to, John Bunyan, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Lewis S. Chafer,
Samuel Hopkins, Heinrich Heppe, and Jonathan Edwards.1
There are some who would state that Amyraldians are Calvinists; others
see Amyraldianism as being outside of Calvinism, but not yet part of
Arminianism.2 This problem of locating Amyraldianism on the theological

1
David Ponter, The Offer and Call of the Gospel Examined in the Light of Scripture
and History (unpublished, 1993), http://www.thevine.net/~phillipj/ponter.htm
(accessed February 27, 2004), adds to this list in footnote 2: “There have been many
who have subscribed to Amyraldian tenets, such as Richard Baxter, Thomas Boston,
Andrew Fuller and Ralph Wardlaw.” Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 394, gives a more extensive list of those who were
“Calvinistic Universalists” with regard to the atonement. He includes Cameron,
Amyraldus, Testardus, Wardlaw, John Brown, James Richards, Emmons, Taylor,
Park, and Beman. Also see Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1997), 166.
2
Although B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Avinger, TX: Simpson), 17, sees
Amyraldianism as “inconsistently particularistic,” he criticizes it as having the same
problems as Lutheranism and Arminianism. Joel R. Beeke, The Quest for Full
Assurance—The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1999), 224 n. 51, quotes Edward Dowden as saying that the Puritan
Richard Baxter (a contemporary of Bunyan and labeled as an Amyraldian) was “too
Arminian for the high Calvinists and too Calvinistic for the Arminians.”
84 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

spectrum affects not only the methodology of investigation into the history of
the doctrine but also the terminology used throughout the scholarly works.
Labels other than Amyraldianism have been given to those within the
Reformed theology who have held to a soteriology belonging to a variant of
Calvinism usually associated with a mediate view of the atonement. These
labels include the following: “The Other Reformed Tradition,” “New
Methodism,” “Hypothetical Universalism,” “Dualism,” “Neo-
Amyraldianism,” “Salmurianism,” and “Baxterianism.”3 The label that is
most common is “Amyraldianism” (Amyraldism), which comes from the
name of the French post-Reformation theologian Moise Amyraut (1596-
1664).4
Amyraut and his teacher John Cameron intended to return Reformed
thought back to what they believed Calvin taught. Alan Sell states with regard
to John Cameron, “His aim was to restore concept of predestination to the
place Calvin’s Institutes had given it, rather than to make it the first premise

3
G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement (Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1997),
81. The term “New Methodism” appears peculiar in light of the fact that it occurs
before the Methodist (circuit rider) movement; see Peter Toon, Puritans and
Calvinism (Swengel, PA: Reiner, 1973), 85. Also see Alan Clifford, Calvinus:
Authentic Calvinism; A Clarification (Norwich, UK: Charenton Reformed, 1996), 15.
Regarding “hypothetical universalism,” B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, 16,
states, “The scheme is therefore known not merely by the name of its author, as
Amyraldianism, but also, more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism, or,
more commonly as Hypothetical Universalism.” Presbyterian scholar David Ponter,
The Offer and Call of the Gospel, uses the term “neo-Amyraldianism” in regard to R.
B. Kuiper’s theology. Regarding “Salmurianism,” see Martin Klauber, Between
Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University
Press, 1994), 26. Alan Clifford wrote regarding “Baxterianism,” “Baxter gave his
name to an English free-church tradition of ‘moderate’ Calvinists, the most notable
late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century ‘Baxterians’ being the Presbyterians
Daniel Williams (1644-1716) and Edmund Calamy III (1671-1732) and the
Congregationalists Isaac Watts (1674-1748) and Philip Doddridge (1702-51).” Alan
Clifford, Atonement and Justification (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990),
76. For a broad use of “Amyraldianism,” see Curtis Daniel, The History and Theology
of Calvinism (Dallas, TX: Scholarly Reprint, 1993), 73.
4
Other spellings include Moyse or Moses Amyraldus. See E. F. Karl Muller,
“Amyraut, Moise,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1951), 160. For continuity, I will use “Moise
Amyraut” and “Amyraldianism,” unless these occur in a quotation. The spelling of
the French Academy of Saumur has variations that include “Salmurian.” Unless the
term occurs in a quotation, I will use “Saumur.”
 Amyraldianism 85

of a scholastic dogmatic structure.”5 Alan Clifford also comments on a desire

in the Academy of Saumur to return to Calvin’s doctrine: “Despite the angry
assaults of the high orthodox party, the Amyraldians argued that they were
simply perpetuating and reproducing Calvin’s theology.”6
Others view Amyraldianism as a variant that is outside of the circle of
legitimate Reformed or Calvinistic theology, even though it may be said to
leave “unchanged the special doctrines of Calvinism.”7 “”“”Even if it is
granted that Calvinism and Amyraldianism are congruous, the confusion
regarding their relationship remains. The doctrines of Amyraldianism and the
history of it make it difficult to produce criteria that will allow
Amyraldianism to be identified and compared with other soteriological
positions. This article seeks to place a step forward both by evaluating current
definitions8 and by proposing a constructive addition to them that will aid in
evaluating various theologians.
Evaluation of Current Definitions
“Amyraldianism” is the entry in historical and theological dictionaries that
seems to exasperate Particularists and Arminians alike. Evidence from several
sources shows the need for an expanded definition of the term or, at the very
least, an objective and standard set of criteria.
An External Question
An external question could be posed to the whole project: why differentiate
Amyraldianism from Calvinism at all? This is an important question in light
of the analysis that views the Amyraldian controversy as merely “indicative of
scholastic method.”9
The answer lies in the nature of the controversies surrounding
Amyraldianism. The definition of Amyraldianism (i.e., what it is and what its
core components are) will delineate its relationship to Calvinism or Reformed
theology. The nature of the controversy between Amyraldianism and
Calvinism could be described as multi-perspectival. From a confessional
perspective, it is questioned whether Amyraldianism is compatible with the

5
Alan Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock, 1998), 31.
6
Clifford, Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism; A Clarification, 15.
7
E. F. Karl Muller, “Amyraut, Moise,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1951), 160.
8
For example, Alan Clifford has contributed two works: Atonement and Justification
and Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism; A Clarification.
9
Richard Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 15.
86 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

Canons of Dort (1618). From a historical perspective, great interest centers

around continuity with Calvin’s doctrines.10 From a pastoral perspective, the
issues of assurance of salvation and free offer of the Gospel come into focus.
The most fundamental theological issue raised in the discussion of the
relationship between Calvinism and Amyraldianism is the nature and extent
of the atonement. Sell’s definition of Amyraut’s theology as “the view that the
atonement, though universal in its scope and therefore in harmony with God’s
antecedent decree of salvation, is effectual only in the case of the elect”11
captures this well. The atonement plays a crucial role in the controversy
because of its practical and pastoral implications. Both Amyraldianism’s
allies and its opponents see ramifications for the offer of the gospel and
personal assurance of salvation.
The relationship between Amyraldianism and Calvinism also impacts
one’s approach to the whole controversy. This is particularly clear in the
analyses from Presbyterian and Reformed traditions, which hold to the
Westminster Standards and explicitly adhere to a Particular Redemption.
Approaching Amyraldianism a priori as outside the Reformed tradition
influences what criteria are used to define someone as Amyraldian.
This is why the terms of debate require closer examination. First,
“Calvinism” and “Calvinistic” are not specific enough to distinguish the
opponents of Amyraldianism. Historically speaking, it is reasonable to
identify movements such as Amyraldianism as controversial variations within
Calvinism itself. Second, while the definition of “limited” or “definite”
atonement is readily available in numerous volumes, Amyraldianism has
received comparatively little treatment.12 Though Amyraldianism was
exonerated of heresy, it was the cause of turmoil and debate in its time.13 The
controversy has abated today, but use of the label “Amyraldianism” continues
despite the lack of a comprehensive definition. The issue continues to be
important because this controversy has implications for the theologically
central matter of Christ’s person and work.
Amyraldianism: System or Idiosyncrasy?
Another significant question is whether or not Amyraldianism should be
considered a broad movement or an idiosyncratic theology held by Moise

10
The multi-faceted origin of the Reformed theology casts doubt on the significance
of this question.
11
Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, 99.
12
For example, Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1994), does not interact with Amyraldianism at all.
13
Richard Muller, Post-Reformation reformed dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 77.
 Amyraldianism 87

Amyraut and his colleagues. This is an important matter to settle as it will

determine whether Amyraldianism can be defined from Amyraut alone or
whether a historical survey is required. To answer this question, current
definitions of the terms will be evaluated followed by a brief historical survey.
Evaluation of Definitions. The works defining Amyraldianism or describing
the beliefs of Moise Amyraut take approaches to the subject that demonstrate
both unity and significant variations. This survey will consider two areas: 1)
differentiation of terms and 2) the scope of terms.
The first consideration is whether or not a reference work differentiates
Amyraldianism from the personal theology of Moise Amyraut. Generally
speaking, dictionaries and theological works tend to avoid differentiation. For
example, both the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia14 and The Columbia
Encyclopedia15 include only “Amyraut, Moise.” Likewise, the Chambers
Biographical Dictionary16 does not mention any system of thought beyond
Amyraut’s own theology, which it describes as a departure “from the doctrine
of predestination in the direction of ‘hypothetical universalism.’” Sell’s
definition of Amyraldianism in the glossary of his work on the Calvinist vs.
Arminian debate also sees Amyraldianism as Moise Amyraut's personal
beliefs.17
While differentiation between Amyraut and Amyraldianism is rare, some
recent works point to a drift in historical theology that grants each a distinct
consideration. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology18 separates Amyraut
from the system named after him by including “Amyraut, Moise” and
“Amyraldianism” as two independent entries. Bruce Demarest acknowledges
in his article for the EDT that Amyraldianism is a “system . . . propounded by
associates at the Saumur Academy” in the seventeenth-century France.
However, these associates are mentioned only in passing, and no attempt is
made to define Amyraldianism as a system outside Amyraut’s own beliefs.
The definition that Roger Nicole gives in the New Dictionary of Theology19 is
the closest to acknowledging the widespread controversy surrounding the

14
E. F. Karl Muller, “Amyraut, Moise,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1951), 160.
15
See K. Muller, “Amyraut, Moise,” 160-161. Also see “Amyraut, Moise,” in The
Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 1843.
16
Magnus Magnusson and Rosemary Goring, eds., “Amyraut,” in Chambers
Biographical Dictionary (Edinburgh, UK: Chambers, 1990), 42.
17
Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, 99.
18
B. A. Demarest, “Amyraldianism” and “Amyraut, Moise” in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 41.
19
Roger Nicole, “Amyraldism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair
Ferguson and David Wright (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988), 17.
88 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

Academy of Saumur. This is because Nicole goes so far as to give attention to

John Cameron and his students, Louis Cappel and Josué de la Place, thus
extending the system beyond Amyraut.
Because criteria for defining Amyraldianism move between Amyraut’s
personal thought and a wider scope, including the Academy of Saumur and
beyond, they lack objectivity and are prone to variations. In summary, current
definitions of Amyraldianism acknowledge that it is a system larger than
Moise Amyraut, but for the most part, description is limited to Amyraut’s life
and his particular thought. This is problematical for a consistent method of
historical investigation into the system of Amyraldianism.
Secondly, a survey of definitions will show that the understanding of what
is essential to Amyraldianism differs among theological and historical
dictionaries. Karl Muller states that the “essential point then of
Amyraldianism is the combination of real particularism with a purely ideal
universalism. . . . [The] main proposition is this: God wills all men to be
saved, on condition that they believe . . . . God also wills in particular to save
a certain number of persons.” 20 While Karl Muller, Stephen Strehle, and
Louis Berkof see Amyraldianism as hinging upon the twofold will, Arthur
McGiffert says that the Academy of Saumur modified Reformed theology at
“two or three points,” referring not just to the atonement but to the nature of
the human will.21 Robert Letham and John Frame both include the decisive
work of the Holy Spirit in their discussion of key features of
Amyraldianism.22 Roger Nicole, on the other hand, includes as essential
“divine grace, predestination and the extent of Christ’s atonement.”23 More
variance is seen when Nicole’s dictionary entry is compared to the five
precise components of Amyraldianism as found in his bibliography on the
subject.24
This survey of theological and historical works has demonstrated that
definitions are not contrary but different in scope. Currently, there is no broad
20
K. Muller, “Amyraut, Moise,” 161.
21
Stephen Strehle, “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism,” Westminster Theological
Journal 51, no. 2 (1989): 356. Though Louis Berkof refers to the twofold decree of
God, it is essentially the same as Karl Muller’s twofold will of God. See Louis
Berkof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 394. Also see
Arthur McGiffert, Protestant Thought before Kant (New York: Scribner’s, 1931),
151.
22
See Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: IVP, 1993 ), 228, and
John Frame, “Brian Armstrong: Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy,” Westminster
Theological Journal 34, no. 2 (1972): 188.
23
Nicole, “Amyraldism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, 17.
24
Roger Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography with special reference to the
controversy on Universal Grace (New York: Garland, 1981), 9-10.
 Amyraldianism 89

consensus as to what the scope of Amyraldianism is as different essential

criteria are proposed.

Evidence of a System
The need for defining Amyraldianism as a system can also be demonstrated
from the fact that Amyraut is the figurehead of a movement or tradition of
thought. Using Richard Muller’s timeline, the controversy begins during the
“early orthodox” period of Reformed thought (1565-1640) and culminates in
the “high orthodox” period (1640-1725) with Formula Consensus Helvetica
of 1675.25
John Davenant. Though Amyraut did not become a theology professor at
Saumur till 1633, Paul Helm deems the theology of John Davenant (1576-
1641) at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) to be “broadly Amyraldian.”26 John
Davenant’s position was akin to that of James Ussher, who is said to have
“sought a middle course” between the “two extremes” of Hyper-Calvinism
and Arminianism.27 W. R. Godfrey notes:
Although Ussher stated his position in terms of the order of the acts of
Christ’s priesthood, rather than in terms of the order of God’s decrees, his
formulation was very similar to that of Moise Amyraut (Amyraldus).
Although the term is anachronistic, Ussher’s views on the atonement as
expressed in this document must be called Amyraldian.28
G. Michael Thomas echoes this with his statements that John Davenant
relied both on “other Reformed theologians”29 and on “the fathers and
scholastics”30 to form his doctrine of universal atonement. Thomas also
connects Amyraldianism and Davenant when he asserts that Davenant was a
“forerunner of the theology of Saumur.”31
That Amyraut is the figurehead of a theological system going at least as
far back as Davenant is buttressed by the criteria that Roger Nicole uses to
define Amyraut’s theology. Nicole’s five criteria as found in his

25
Richard Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological
Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 4-5.
26
Paul Helm, Calvin & the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1998), 36.
27
Godfrey notes that Davenant and Ussher did not know each other before the Synod
of Dort, nor were their ideas identical. W. Robert Godfrey, “Reformed Thought on
the Extent of the Atonement to 1618,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 2
(1975): 167, 170.
28
Ibid., 169.
29
Thomas, “The Extent of the Atonement,” 151.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid., 152.
90 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

bibliography32 are nearly identical to the five criteria that John Davenant used
to explain his doctrine of atonement in A Dissertation on the Death of
Christ.33
The Synod of Dort. While some have seen the need for a narrow definition of
the extent of the atonement in response to Amyraut and the Saumur Academy,
it would be inappropriate to state as a matter of fact that Saumur theology
“differed from the prevailing orthodoxy as represented by the Synod of Dort
(1618)” on this point.34 Berkhof’s reference to the Saumur Academy as an
“attempt to tone down the rigorous Calvinism of the Synod of Dort”35
arguably supports the view that Saumur was nuancing the theology of Dort,
not contradicting or differing from it.36 It is significant for this point that those
from the school of Saumur (including Moise Amyraut) who generally
supported unlimited atonement were supportive of the decisions of the Synod
of Dort.37 Alan Sell also describes Amyraut as making a development of
Dort’s theology: “Amyraut’s development of the Dort position to the effect
that since Christ died sufficiently for all though effectually only for the elect,
there was an external call addressed to the pious heathen, caused further
consternation in the Calvinist ranks.”38
Academy of Saumur. The definition of Amyraldianism as a system must
reflect the fact that the controversy within Reformed circles involved the

32
Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography, 9-10.
33
John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ (1832; repr., Springfield, IL:
Good Books, 2002).
34
Andrew T. B. McGowan, “Amyraldianism,” in The Dictionary of Historical
Theology, ed. Trevor A. Hart (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 13. A comparison
of Davenant's and Amyraut’s theology can be found in chapter 5 of the following
article: Mark Shand, “John Davenant: A Jewel of the Reformed Churches or a
Tarnished Stone? pt. 2,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 32, no. 1 (1998):
18.
35
Emphasis mine. Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh,
UK: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 190.
36
Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles (1870; repr.,
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 540, speculates that the intentions of those from
Saumur were more rebellious: “It was a revolt from the position maintained at the
Synod of Dort, under the guise of an explanation; for the propounders of the theory
would not allow that they were out of harmony with its decrees.”
37
Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort,”
Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 1 (1989): 23.
38
Sell, “The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation.” 31. Richard
Muller, After Calvin : Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 15, concurs with this assessment.
 Amyraldianism 91

whole Academy of Saumur. Among those involved were Amyraut’s teacher

John Cameron (1579-1623), several of his colleagues and students, and “the
pastors of the influential Reformed Church of Charenton near Paris.”39 This
fact is reflected in the use of the term “Salmurian theology” as a parallel of
the term “Amyraldianism.”40 A. A. Hodge also views Amyraut not as a
solitary voice but as a figurehead of the broader movement in the Academy.41
After Saumur. The term Amyraldian is also used to describe the position of
theologians who lived after Amyraut and the influential period of the Saumur
Academy.42 To continue with the aforementioned example, John Bunyan
(1628-1688), the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, has been described as being a
member of the British equivalent of Amyraldianism.43 Though it is possible
that Bunyan was exposed to chaplains in Cromwell’s army who were versed
in the theology of Moise Amyraut, there is no evidence that he read any of his
books.44 This is but one example of the term Amyraldianism referring not to
direct readers or followers of Amyraut and Saumur theologians but to
members of a particular movement within the larger scope of Reformed or
Calvinistic thought. Using such a label for Bunyan, to say nothing of its
accuracy, is to categorize him in a fashion that is outside the scope of most
dictionary definitions of Amyraldianism.
The example of John Bunyan demonstrates that theologians who never
read Amyraut’s works nor followed his personal theology are still labeled
Amyraldian. Amyraldianism has been largely defined in the context of the
theology of Amyraut himself, and not in light of how the term Amyraldianism

39
Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort,” 17.
40
Stephen Strehle, “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism,” Westminster Theological
Journal 51, no. 2 (1998): 345-57, states, “The Amyraldian system begins with John
Cameron.”
41
A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983),
128, states, “modified form of Calvinism, which in that century emanated from the
Theological School of Saumur, [was] represented by Amyraldus, Placaeus, etc.”
(emphasis mine).
42
Another example of an English Amyraldian is Richard Baxter. “The views of the
School of Saumur were practically shared by Davenant, Calamy, and especially
Richard Baxter, in England” (Louis Berkhof, The history of Christian doctrines
[Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985], 190).
43
Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Dallas, TX: Scholarly
Reprints, 1990), 73.
44
Frank Mott Harrison, John Bunyan (Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995),
11, states, “During his garrison days Bunyan would have heard many a sermon by
Puritan preachers, both at the parish church of Newport Pagnell, and also from those
who were acting as chaplains.”
92 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

is actually used in historical theology. The definition of any term is obviously

inadequate when it is consistently used differently from its lexical entry. The
term is used both of theologians before Amyraut’s prominence and after his
popularity as a teacher waned. While Amyraut’s individual doctrine needs to
be defined, the current definitions available do not do justice to the usage of
the term nor the breadth of its meaning.
Evaluation Summary. We can summarize the following facts about
Amyraldianism from this evaluation. Firstly, Amyraldianism is closely related
to Calvinistic doctrine and therefore needs to be defined very specifically.
Secondly, although Amyraldianism is often tied too closely to Amyraut’s
personal theology, it needs to be treated as an entity or system in its own right.
Thirdly, a solid definition must take into account the fact that Amyraut was
merely the most famous individual of a movement that progressed through
Reformation history and eventually centered around the Academy at Saumur.
This is evidence that calling the theology of Saumur “Amyraldian” is akin to
calling the theology of Dort “Calvinism.” The movement is known by its most
influential and prominent leader yet encompasses more than its leader.45
A Constructive Addition
As we have seen, there is a need to differentiate Amyraldianism as a system
from Amyraut’s personal thoughts. However, there is variance in the core
criteria for determining which theologians are Amyraldian. A constructive
addition to the current definition begins where previous criteria leave off.
As was noted, Nicole’s five core criteria for Amyraldianism are nearly
identical to the five core criteria that John Davenant used in his discussion on
the nature of the atonement. Defining the system of Amyraldianism by
merging these criteria would have several benefits. On the one hand, it would
reflect the thought of French theology of Amyraut and the English theology of
Davenant; on the other, it would reflect slightly different time frames, with
Davenant preceding Amyraut by a few years. While these two sources can
provide the basis for stable and objective criteria, there is a third source that
can be used.
The third source is the Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675. Roger
Nicole concludes his definition of Amyraldianism with this statement: “In
1675 J. H. Heidegger in concert with F. Turretin (1623-1687) and L. Gernler
issued the Formula Consensus Helvetica designed specifically as an anti-
Salmurian document, but the influence of Saumur was felt in all the countries
to which French Protestants fled after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.”46

45
Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism, 20.
46
Nicole, “Amyraldism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, 17.
 Amyraldianism 93

Because the Formula Consensus Helvetica (FCH)47 of 1675 was a direct

response to the Saumur Academy, it provides a third source for an objective
set of criteria. An analysis of this confession will yield what the High
Calvinists saw as the main points of contention with the Amyraldian system.
This document provides a window into how Calvinists who were involved in
the disputations at the time defined Amyraldianism.
The FCH was born out of a direct response to the theology of Saumur
(Amyraldianism) and an indirect response to the loose definitions of
atonement at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). This is attested to in the
comments of Philip Schaff: “It [the FCH] is a defense of the scholastic
Calvinism of the Synod of Dort against the theology of Saumur (Salmurium),
especially against the universalism of Amyraldus. Hence it may be called a
Formula anti-Salmuriensis, or anti-Amyraldensis.”48 Martin Klauber
comments similarly: “The Helvetic Formula Consensus developed out of a
need to respond to the growing popularity of remonstrant thought and the
moderate compromise position of the Saumur Academy.”49 Alan Clifford also
views the Synod of Dort as a precursor to later problems when he states:
Article 3 of the second canon [of Dort] states, ‘The death of the Son of
God . . . is . . . abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.’
Here is the suggestion that, notwithstanding the limited efficacy of the
atonement, its universal sufficiency is as much part of its design. Allowing
for some degree of ambiguity at this point, the second canon does not
necessarily teach that the atonement’s sufficiency is merely a consequence of
its ‘infinite worth and value’. Therefore, Dort really teaches a limited
efficacious atonement, not a limited atonement as such. Such was the
understanding of Baxter and Amyraut, and doubtless it would have been
Calvin’s too, judging by his comment on the repentant thief on the cross:
‘Our Lord made effective for him His death and passion which he suffered
and endured for all mankind . . . .’50
In summary, even though the FCH reacted directly to Moise Amyraut and
the Saumur Academy,51 the history leading up to this formulation involved
pre- and post-Dort controversy. This is significant because the term

47
For brevity's sake, the Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675 will be referred to as
FCH.
48
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, The History of the Creeds, 6th ed.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990), 478.
49
Martin I. Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction And
Translation,” Trinity Journal 11, no. 1 (1990): 103.
50
Alan Clifford, Atonement and Justification (New York: Oxford University Press,
1990), 73-74.
51
Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism, 25.
94 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

“Amyraldianism” is used in an anachronistic way (referring to theology both

before and after Amyraut). While the Synod of Dort may have been a more
direct impetus to debate about the extent of the atonement and ensuing FCH,
in many ways the controversy originated earlier, with the second generation
of Reformers.
G. Michael Thomas traces the concept of unlimited atonement and related
doctrines of Amyraldianism in Reformed thought from Calvin and Bullinger
to the Englishmen Davenant and Ward, then on to Cameron and Amyraut.52
The legalistic flavor of the German Reformed conditional covenant and the
radical concepts of Remonstrants resulted in the Synod of Dort, where the
“different strands of Reformed teaching on the covenant, and the extent of the
atonement, encountered each other directly, and could not be consistently
reconciled.”53
Furthermore, the rejection of the FCH by both French and Swiss parties
was not based on perceived inaccuracies regarding Amyraldianism. The
rejection was based on its divisive nature, its perceived irrelevancy in light of
the closing of the Academy of Saumur in 1681,54 and the progress toward
Pan-Protestant union. While the reception of the FCH at the Academy of
Saumur is a topic for further investigation, current evidence points toward its
acceptance as accurate.
Ultimately, the criteria from an analysis of this document should not yield
results dramatically different from those already present in historical and
theological dictionaries because most of them do describe some aspect of the
theology of Amyraut or the Academy of Saumur. What is important, though,
is that the FCH, in conjunction with other criteria, provides more ground for a
uniform and objective investigation.
The aim of this study of the FCH has been to demonstrate that it can be
used as a third leg (along with Nicole and Davenant) to support the core
criteria in defining the Amyraldian system. A consideration of these three
sources results in the following five core criteria:
1. Sin affects men in such a way that it removes all moral ability
regarding salvation yet leaves all natural ability (i.e., understanding,
will, emotions) intact.55
52
Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, 250.
53
Ibid., 249.
54
Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-Protestantism, 147.
55
Point one corresponds to Roger Nicole’s points four and five in his bibliography
(Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography, 10) and to the articles XXI and XXII in
FCH (see John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches [Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox, 1982], 320). Richard Lum agrees with Brian Armstrong that this was intended
by Amyraut and Cameron to unite the faculty of the will and the understanding.
 Amyraldianism 95

2. God, moved by an earnest love and desire to save all mankind,

decided to give in ransom His Son, Jesus Christ, who died equally for
all men and makes a universal offer of salvation to all men.56
3. Remission of sins and eternal life are offered to all on the
conditions of faith and repentance.57
4. Christ himself, through his goodness and love, intercedes for the
elect by supplying faith in the hearts of the elect via the Holy Spirit.58
5. The death of Christ satisfied God the Father for the entire human
race, yet actual reconciliation does not take place until an individual
believes.59
Conclusion
Many examples from historical theology discussions could demonstrate that
labels are often used without the realization that labels alone cannot be used
for discussing the meaning behind them. One could ask, what does it mean to
be Amyraldian? The surveyed sources give answers that are varied. While
excellent definitions are available, none take the step to seek or describe a set

Richard Lum, “Preface” in Moyse Amyraut, Brief Treatise on Presdestination and Its
Dependent Principles, trans. Richard Lum (Springfield, IL: Scholarly Reprints, 1985),
v. Kevin Vanhoozer, First Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP), 122 n. 114, suggests
a solution to bypass the controversy over this point.
56
Point two corresponds to point two in Roger Nicole’s bibliography. See Roger
Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography with special reference to the controversy on
Universal Grace, 9. It also corresponds to John Davenant’s first point in his
comments on the atonement. See John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of
Christ (1832; repr., Springfield, IL: Good Books, 2002), 401. Further correspondence
is found in the FCH of 1675, article VI. See Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 312.
57
Point three corresponds to the FCH’s denial of the “impossible condition, provided
they believe; that he obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not applied to
all.” See article XVI of the FCH of 1675 in Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 316.
58
Point four corresponds to Paul Helm’s assessment of Amyraldianism. According to
him, for the Amyraldian position, this particular aspect is accomplished through the
work of the Holy Spirit. Paul Helm, Calvin & the Calvinists (Edinburgh, UK: Banner
of Truth Trust, 1982), 36, writes, “The Amyraldians appear to have . . . [argued] that
the work of Christ as a totality was for all and that this total saving work was applied
by the Holy Spirit to the elect alone” (emphasis his).
59
Point five corresponds to Roger Nicole’s reference to Amyraut’s universal
“ransom.” See Nicole, Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography, 9. Davenant refers to a
universal “reconciliation.” See Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 441.
Although these are different, they are encompassed by universal “satisfaction.” This
point corresponds with what articles XII, XV and XVI of the FCH refute. See Leith,
Creeds of the Churches, 315-316.
96 CTS Journal 11 (Fall 2005)

of criteria that is objective and can approximate Amyraldianism as a

theological system.
In many ways, the proposal here is simply taking work that is already
done to its logical conclusion. It is oriented around developing an objective
and history-sensitive set of core criteria to form the basis for a method of
comparison and identification. The five criteria as proposed here are not to be
indicative of any single person’s theology (e.g., Cameron, Amyraut,
Davenant, Calvin, etc.). The criteria are the result of an attempt to incorporate
the complexities of history in an encapsulated format in order to provide the
basis for identifying a system or “trajectory” of thought.60

David H. Wenkel earned his B.S. degree at Columbia College of Missouri but
switched paths after being called into ministry. He continued at Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, graduating with an M.A. in Christian Thought with a major in
systematic theology. This summer he will be a visiting professor at Grace Baptist
Theological Seminary. His e-mail address is [email protected].

60
Richard Muller’s axiom is important to consider for this study: “On the one hand,
generalized conceptions of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation fail to do
justice to the complexity of history and on the other hand, they fail to illuminate very
specific trajectories of though that bear directly on the specifics of Calvin’s own
work.” See Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation
of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 185.