Amyraldianism

“He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.” 1 John 2:2

“For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” 2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Amyraldians say that Jesus died for everyone and thus embrace universal atonement.  But if Jesus died for everyone, then why does anyone go to hell?  Because not everyone believes.  But doesn’t this mean that Christ did not die for every sin, namely, unbelief?  It looks like the Amyraldian must say that Jesus died for everyone, but not for every sin.  Jesus did not die for the sin of unbelief.  But doesn't this imply that the atonement only saves us potentially, and not actually - contingent upon us supplying faith?  This is the line the Arminians takes.  But Amyraldians can resist this reasoning.

Calvinists want to say that Jesus accomplished our actual salvation on the cross and not merely our potential salvation.  If we further grant that not everyone is saved, it must be that Christ died only for the elect, for otherwise everyone would be saved.  Any universal atonement seems to make the accomplishment a mere potential one, contingent on a person’s belief or deeds - unless, of course, one bites the bullet and just embraces Universalism.

Here's one move to counter the above dialectic:  Christ died in different respects for the reprobate and for the elect.  For the elect, he accomplished our actual salvation.  No conditions whatsoever.  But for the reprobate, he accomplished their potential salvation, conditional on their acceptance of the gospel.  None do accept it, of course.  This is a type of Amyraldianism in the vein of Edmund Calamy, one of the divines present at the Westminster Assembly.  It requires that God had a dual intent in providing the atonement for mankind.

Why hold to this rather complicated view?  First, it seems to cohere well with the universal nature of God's love for mankind - Christ did die (in different respects) for everyone.  It also supports the genuineness of the offer of the gospel - if the reprobate believed apart from election, they would be saved.  I of course don't think that's possible for a myriad of reasons; but that the atonement was not intended for them and did not pay for them is not one of those reasons.   This complicated view also seems to further justify the torment of the reprobate because they reject the infinite God's free offer.

Arminians say that the atonement does not work unless we believe, and that’s something that we contribute ourselves.  Arminians think that faith is a requirement for salvation, a condition of it, and *not* a result of it.  Arminians think that faith causes salvation.  They're committed to the atonement providing only potential salvation.

Calvinists think that the atonement accomplished our actual salvation, contingent on nothing else.  Faith will be supplied of course, but it’s not a condition of salvation, it’s a result of it.  Calvinists think that salvation causes faith.  Calvinists are committed to the atonement achieving the actuality of the elect's salvation alone.

Amyraldians think that the atonement is both actual and potential in its effects: 

Actual: For the elect, the atonement accomplished actual salvation.  He died for all of their sins and will supply their faith to them.

Potential: And for the reprobate, the atonement accomplished potential salvation.  He died for all of their sins *except* the sin of unbelief. 

Lee Gatiss has done some good historical work on this position.