Let me remind you, reader, of Amyraut’s position: God the Father intended and designed the atonement to be universal in that he decreed Christ should redeem the whole world, sufficiently for all on condition that they believe, but effectively only for the elect. God, therefore, had a twofold will, purpose or intention in redemption; consequently, Christ wrought this twofold redemption. Amyraut: ‘Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually... His intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy... This was the most free counsel and gracious purpose both of God the Father, in giving his Son for the salvation of mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ in suffering the pains of death, that the efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the elect, and to them only’ Thus, as Clifford said: ‘Correlating with the twofold will of God, Amyraut’s view of the atonement’s design involved a twofold intention... [which led to] a potential universal provision’. ‘Notwithstanding the limited efficacy of the atonement, the divinely-intended provision is universal according to... Amyraut’ ‘The Amyraldian position [is]: Christ died (with dual intent) for all “provisionally” but for the elect “receptively”. We believe in a “particular efficacious redemption” as well as a “general sufficient redemption”’. |
