In what sense are you calling it, "The Amyraldin [sic] heresy," Steve?Paul Helm doesn't himself call Amyraut's teaching a "heresy." Of course he thinks his teaching is in error and false, even more so than what he thinks is the milder Davenantian variety of so-called "Hypothetical Universalism" (note that Helm distinguishes between the two forms of HU), but there's no hint in the post that Helm classifies it as "heresy."Are you just using the term "heresy" as equivalent to "false"? Or maybe as teaching that is "unorthodox" in the sense of being incompatible with the Reformed confessions? Or possibly as damnable doctrine that violates essential Christian teaching? Or some other way?
For starters, it's standard terminology. Consider the title of Brian Armstrong's monograph.
What the "sic"? There are variant spellings of the position, viz. Amyraldism, Amyraldianism.
1) The "sic" refers to the spelling in your title. You spelled it as "Amyraldin." I have never seen that "variant."2) Saying "it's standard terminology" does not clarify the sense in which you are using the term. I am familiar with Armstrong's work and the sense in which he uses the term, but not your own use of it. Armstrong, it seems to me, is using it for how Amyraut's position was perceived by some of his critics, but not as something violating essentials of the Christian faith. I think the sense of Armstrong is the second I listed, i.e. as teaching that is "unorthodox" in the sense of being incompatible with the Reformed confessions. That's how some of Amyraut's opponents thought of his views, which is why they wanted the synods to examine him.I think Richard Muller has read Armstrong's "heresy" term the same way I have, and sees it as unjustified, given how Amyraut was exonerated by several synods. Muller wrote:"Amyraut was, after all, exonerated by several national synods in France, and the debate over his "hypothetical universalism" did not lead to the charge of heterodoxy against others, like Davenant, Martinius, and Alsted, who had, both at Dort and afterward, maintained similar lines of argument concerning the extent of Christ's satisfaction. The Westminster Confession was in fact written with this diversity in view, encompassing confessionally the variant Reformed views on the nature of the limitation of Christ's satisfaction to the elect, just as it was written to be inclusive of the infra- and the supralapsarian views on predestination. Amyraut, moreover, arguably stood in agreement with the intraconfessional adversaries like Turretin on such issues as the fundamental articles of faith."I am still not clear on how or why you are using the term "heresy" in your title. Muller does not seem to think Armstrong's title is warranted (or by implication that Warfield's view of the boundaries of the Westminster Confession is correct), given the facts of history, as he briefly outlines above and elsewhere. Helm seems to be following Warfield's outdated historiography that has been discredited by modern Reformed historians (Muller, Gatiss, et. al.). The second sense of "heresy" against Amyraut (i.e. one that is contrary to the Reformed confessions) has been discredited by them.
"1) The 'sic' refers to the spelling in your title. You spelled it as 'Amyraldin.' I have never seen that 'variant.'"I think I've seen it spelled the way Steve spelled it in academic monographs.
"I think I've seen it spelled the way Steve spelled it in academic monographs."I suppose that is possible (not plausible), but a Google search produces nothing, not even in an EEBO-TCP Key Word Search. I have read almost all the doctoral dissertations on Amyraut's thought in English (and a lot of journal articles as well) and I have never once seen it spelled as "Amyraldin." I suspect it was just an understandable typo from Steve as he posted in haste, hence the "sic." It happens to us all. ;-)
Tony Byrne:"I am still not clear on how or why you are using the term 'heresy' in your title."Because it's the title of a classic monograph on the topic. "Muller does not seem to think Armstrong's title is warranted."i) To begin with, why do you labor under the misconception that I ought to agree with Muller's disapprobation of Armstrong's title? ii) Muller is so confused that he doesn't even think traditional Calvinism was deterministic–a confusion he shares with Oliver Crisp.
"...why do you labor under the misconception that I ought to agree with Muller's disapprobation of Armstrong's title?"Because on that particular subject, it's historically credible, being based on solid facts and sound reasoning, which is why other well-respected Reformed historians have concurred. Where Muller's reasoning is not sound or based on historical facts, we ought not to agree with him, obviously.Anyway, thanks for your reply.