11. What is the view of this subject entertained by the French Protestant theologians, Camero, Amyraut, and others?
These theological professors at Saumur, during the second quarter of the seventeenth century, taught that God, 1st. Decreed to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d.To provide, in the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, foreseeing that if men were left to themselves none would repent and believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to whom he decreed to give the necessary graces of repentance and faith.The new school theology of America, as far as it relates to the decrees of God, is only a revival of this system.
It differs from the Calvinistic view in making the decree of redemption precede the decree of election.
It differs from the Arminian view in regarding the sovereign good pleasure of God, and not foreseen faith, the ground of election. The objection to this view is, that it is an essential element in that radically false view of the atonement called the governmental theory.—See Chapter XXII., questions 6, 7.
Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1863), 178–79.
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- How To Support Heidelmedia: Use the Donate Button Below
- Resources On Amyraut, Amyraldianism, And Hypothetical Universalism
” But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. ”
Merry Christmas! These verses, Galatians 4:4-7, are often looked at from the point of view of “me” and “now.” For all the legitimacy of that, it’s not how they start. They start from pre-Christmas, or Advent, or however you call the time before an act.
God didn’t only plan to do something, like people sometimes say He planned to “offer” this and that, some of it working, some not. So verse 6 looks at verse 5 as a fait accompli. In verse 5, God’s purpose, God’s aim in acting, was “that we might receive the adoption as sons.” But when Paul says “Because you are sons,” he asserts that God succeeded in what that purpose says.
Thanks for the summary, I didn’t extrapolate what the major issue with this differentiation was just from the post.