Defending Euthyphro

I wrote a paper on this subject a couple of years ago in philosophy and thought it might be a good idea to share now. Take a look.

This paper refers to two documents, the Euthyphro by Plato, and Is There Such a Thing as the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical By Kierkegaard.

Euthyphro: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
Kierkegaard: I wish I could find the text, but I can't. Sorry.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Euthyphro finds himself in a discussion with Socrates about the nature of what is holy. The primary question Socratese asks Euthypro is “Is a thing holy because it is loved by the gods or is it loved by the gods because it is holy?” My attempt in defending Euthyphro’s argument is not to defend Euthyphro, for Euthyphro argues in a circle and answers the above question with both alternatives. Furthermore, Socrates forces Euthyphro into several contradictions of himself. I cannot defend a contradiction, and since that is what made up Euthyphro’s argument, I cannot defend the argument. Rather, my aim is to show that answering Socrates question does not force a contradiction.

First, I must say that I am arguing from a slightly different standpoint than is Euthyphro. Euthyphro’s argument suffered a weakness because it was imbedded in polytheism, and the Greek gods were inconsistent in what they valued. A monotheistic system of beliefs avoids this weakness, and Socrates moves on from this criticism later in his question of Euthyphro, so inconsistencies in the deities will not be considered here, because the problem is irrelevant to monotheism. I will also use the term God throughout the paper rather than “the gods” of whom Socrates and Euthyphro speak.

The question still must be answered. Is a thing holy because God loves it, or does God love it because it is holy? My answer, is that a thing is holy because God loves it. Unfortunately, Socrates never really replied to Euthyphro on this point, because after Euthyphro said this, he realized that he had contradicted himself, and ran away. The only challenge of this position that is made in any of the texts for the semester is by Kierkegaard, and his criticism only applies to ethical situations, which will be discussed later.

The most apparent problem with this answer that I have suggested is what if God said something horrible like torturing babies is holy? If God is the standard, then anything God says goes, so he (I am using the male pronoun only for simplicity) technically has the authority to consider torturing babies as holy. If God wanted to, he could have created the universe in such a way that anything that is considered abominable could be virtuous.

However, assuming an omnipotent, omniscient, self-existing, creator God, access to understanding what he finds holy or good can be found it what he created and how he created it. The very notion that some things in this world seem to be absolute, such as torturing babies is wrong, shows that a creator God created the world in such a way where torturing babies is wrong. If God is as described above, he must be the foundation for all existence. He is self-existent, the universe is not, and he existed before the universe. He also created it and gave it the attributes that he chose. So, to speak of any attribute as having apparent value apart from how God views it or accepts it is utter nonsense. What can exist inside a universe that God created that is other than what God created? If this God exists, it seems to be logically necessary that all of the definitions for goodness and holiness be found in him.

It is here that Kierkegaard errs as well. The key premise of Kierkegaard’s argument condemning Abraham is not applicable in a world with an omniscient, omnipotent, self-existing, creator God. The first seven words in Kierkegaard’s “Is There Such a Thing as the Teleological Suspension of the Ethical” are “The ethical as such is the universal.” If God exists, God is the universal, not the ethical. The ethical certainly is experienced by everyone, but the ethical is and must be derived from God. Kierkegaard’s entire argument hinges on this premise. If he had stated that because men cannot know who God is, men must seek the ethical because it is the highest thing that men can know. However, this does not apply to Abraham, who does not suffer from the epistemological problem. The same God who promised Abraham a son by two people who are past child-bearing (Genesis 17:17-19) brought it about (Gen. 21:1-2) and then commanded him to sacrifice (Genesis 22:2). Abraham knew this was God speaking to him. Kierkegaard is arguing that God must be subject in what he commands by ethics that he has created. This makes sense from a humanistic standpoint, but logically it is awkward. Did God restrict himself when he gave men moral sensibilities?

This is not exactly a defense of Euthyphro. I have argued from the position that Socrates forced Euthyphro into accepting. I believe that it is a logically viable position if it assumed that God does indeed exist, and its foundation is in God. People disagree about who God is and what God finds to be good or holy, but this does not affect the theory proposed in this paper, it does however make it hard to follow practically. However, a problem in epistemology does not imply that the theory itself is false.

Can God Lie?

Can God lie? I think He can, but does not indulge this potential appetite because it does not give God the most glory and allow God to maximally enjoy Himself forever. But, I have been challenged to formally reconcile Hebrews 6:18 to my idea and I take up this challenge in the hope that God would fill me with his Spirit to give me discernment and joy in how I view and love His Word and that I would be willing and able to change my mind without issue if I am shown to be incorrect in my analysis of this verse. If anyone reads this post, directed or not, it does not reflect any part of Paul's theology and should not be attributed as such. Also, if you feel lead to, please feel free to delete this at your discretion Paul and I would also love your ideas and critisism as well. Soli Deo Gloria.

[post-script addendum] - this post is a response to Justin Day's question on manspeak blog: “Kelfer, you state that you think it is possible for God to lie, but Hebrews 6:18, at least in the English translations, tells us that it’s impossible for God to lie. Now it might be the case that the Greek text would give us a different insight on this issue, but the closest translation we have available [NASB] uses the word impossible. Given Hebrews 6, how do you hold your position?”" I agree, this is a bit like picking straws, but I have run into this on multiple occasions and I want to hear some criticism. Please read this with the understanding that this is addressing a very specific question that is being asked so this potential answer is very specific as well.[/post-script addendum]

"13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” 15 And thus Abraham, [2] having patiently waited, obtained the promise. 16 For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. 19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 13-20 ESV.org)

The word in Hebrews 6:18 is adynaton which means: "without ability." Its grammatical identity is in an adjective in the nominative singular neuter construct. The purpose for such a usage in this instance is due to a literary device of exaggeration of impossibility which is common in Greek and is also found elsewhere in the New Testament. Its translated meaning is: impotent, weak, or impossible. All three are used commonly throughout scripture in accordance to whatever is theologically convenient and expedient at the time. This word is much like the word peira which is used interchangeably to mean both to test and to tempt and tends to give theologians and translators alike a difficult time.

In this instance, the author of Hebrews is using the concept of swearing by something larger than himself (which the text concerning this relating to Genesis is actually cited here concerning God's covenant with Abraham where he swears by Himself) and falls into the literary category of intentional rhetorical exaggeration. The author's intention is to state in this passage (6:17-18) that God’s purpose will not be changed by anything outside of himself and answers an objection to this mid-statement by stating (forcefully, with the aforementioned literary device) that God does not lie so what he says is true. This is to say that God truthful as shown through and by His revealed character and is worthy of all hope. The author righteously exaggerates (in this case that is to speak in the superlative degree) in this passage to show God’s worthiness of one’s hope and the security therein. Hebrews 6:18 does not say that it is “impossible” for God to lie. If one wants to take the impossible route, it is based off of a literary device of exaggeration and when one places other translations of the same word in scripture in this context as well, it is very difficult to hold that translation of the verse. For instance, this passage equally could also say that it is impotent or weak for God to lie which is also theologically expedient and true if taken exactly (which would better explain why he does not lie). To play on a philosophical playground (if the reader is more comfortable there), a logical argument could be constructed as such:

1. All things are possible for God.
2. Some things are impossible for God
3. Because all things are possible for God, there can be nothing that is impossible for God. This is a contradiction.
4. Therefore, all impossible things are possible for God.

The main thing to take away from this passage is to know that God does not lie, to trust God, and that God is worthy of that trust.

The only other passage in scripture concerning this issues that have I found is in Titus 1:2 where Paul says that God never lies (or cannot lie [NASB]). This translation is based off the Greek verb “to lie” (pseudomai – (v -inf) to speak falsely) combined with the negative participle (a…) with the word here being constructed as an adjective in the nominative singular masculine construct (apseudes). This means literally that God is without falsehood in speaking [1]. The addition of the nuanced “cannot” and “never” is liberty that was taken in translating so that the passage would be more readable. This passage in Titus states Paul’s intention of why he is writing this Epistle to Titus and goes through all sorts of things that God has promised and revealed and supports its truth by stating that God is without falsehood (aka God does not lie). In such a way, this subordinate clause is purposed to state that a creature’s secure relationship between himself and God (held secure by God’s perfect immutability) is immune to deceit because God is without falsehood and so God’s promises are true and therefore secure and worthy of trust. One great thing this passage does is extend God’s truthfulness to all of God’s dealings with himself and creatures (how sweet this truth is!!), but it does not at all exclude the ability of God to lie, it merely states that God does not do so.

In conclusion, here are my thoughts: Can God lie? Yes. Does God lie? No. Will God ever lie? No. Why does God not lie? Because it is not the best means to accomplish the best end with the greatest of eternal expedience. Lying neither maximizes God's glory nor His enjoyment of Himself so he does not partake in such.

[1] The theological and anthropological implications of God’s speech lacking falsehood are simply enormous. If taken that divine speech is a creative metaphor and that false is the antithesis of true (true (adj.) – a property of a noun being an accurate description of reality), then God creates that which is true. From this concept, all of our beloved “rules” gain relevance and mutual exclusivity gains its bite. The very course of human logic and scientific inquiry exists and experience becomes useful upon God.

Grudem's answer

I believe that I have come to a conclusion on the doctrine of Limited Atonement (from here on LA). The treatment of the doctrine that I found most helpful in coming to this conclusion is chapter 27 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. I have alluded earlier that my primary holdup in accepting the Calvinistic view of LA were two verses, I John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 There were other verses that said similar things, but it was these two verses that did not seem to have a simple explanation for how a view of LA could be acceptable when Christ is a propitiation “for the sins of the whole world”, and when he “gave himself as a ransom for all.”

Before reading Grudem, every Calvinistic defense of LA that I read relied on redefining the words “world” and “all” in these two verses. I could not, and still cannot accept that redefinition with those verses. I have been aware of what Kelfer talked about in his previous post, that “world” means a lot of different things in scripture. However, in these two verses, the context suggests that “world” and “all” in their respective verses actually mean the whole world and all men. This seems especially clear to me in 1 Timothy 2:6. The attempts to redefine this word in the verse look like an attempt to avoid the clear meaning of the verse through sophisticated argumentation. The interpretation does hazard to the text, and I can’t accept it. To accept it, I feel as if I would be molding scripture into my image.

*This post was already finished, but I just read Kelfer’s defense of the “whole world” referring only to the elect in 1 John 2:2, so the following section is in one sense separate from the rest of the post.*

I have a reason for rejecting your theory on the context of the whole world in 1 John 2:2, Jon. In 1 John 4:10 we see that John says, “He has sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” In context, this verse clearly is talking about believers, because there are references to many things that are only true to those that are saved. I totally agree with you.

However, compare this to 1 John 2:2. “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins,” at first, this sounds just like 4:10. He uses “our” the same way in both verses. However, when we continue reading we see, “and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” The first group in 1 John 2:2, the “our”, is who he is talking about in 1 John 4:10, not the “whole world.” The whole world is something different, something more than his audience, which seem to be believers based on your own observations of 1 John 4. It seems that he is making a clear distinction in this verse that it actually is the whole world he is talking about, and not just the elect.

*Back to the original…*

I needed another interpretation, and that is where Grudem came in. He said something about these two verses that seems so obvious now that I have read it, but I could not see it before. Grudem’s interpretation on pg 598-599 of 1 John 2:2 is:

“He [John] may simply be understood to mean that Christ is the atoning sacrifice that the gospel now makes available for the sins of everyone in the world. The preposition “for” (Gk. Peri plus genitive) is ambiguous with respect to the specific sense in which Christ is the propitiation “for” the sins of the world. Peri simply means “concerning”, or “with respect to” but is not specific enough to define the exact way in which Christ is the sacrifice with respect to the sins of the world.

The same word is used in 1 Timothy 2:6. I don’t know Greek. But this interpretation is consistent even in the English. How is Christ a propitiation for the sins of the world? Does saying that Christ is “for” that mean that their sins have been propitiated before God? In 1 Timothy, Does it mean that Christ has actually ransomed all? He is a ransom for all in the sense His ransom is sufficient for all, is offered to all, and could be given to all. However, we know that God chooses some and that we are unable to come to faith on our own, so he is effectually only a ransom for the elect. He is offered to all, but only some have been enabled by God to overcome their own depravity and accept the offer.

Now I have an answer to the question “for whom did Christ die?” He died for all, to genuinely offer salvation to all. And, He died only for the elect to effectually work out their salvation on the basis of His choice. Both answers are equally true. They are not in conflict. He died for all, and He died only for the elect. The answer to the question “for whom did Christ die?” is ambiguous. The answer to the question, “For whom did Christ die to offer salvation?” is all men and women on the earth. The answer to the question, “For whom did Christ die to save from their sins and justify in the sight of God?” is only the elect. I don’t know if that makes me a four or a five point Calvinist. I don’t really care. I do believe that this is what the Bible teaches on this subject, thus it is what I believe.

Also, Dave and Jon, thanks for being clear on propitiation. You guys are correct there for sure. Propitiation cannot be divorced from reconciliation. It’s weird to think about, but I knew something was wrong, so I wanted to analyze everything to try to find what I was missing. I believe that this way of looking at “for” is it.

-Paul

Propitiation and Reconciliation

Someone being propitiated has God's wrath averted. If the person isn't saved, it presents a problem when one considers the meaning of reconciliation and its relationship to propitiation in the Bible.

First, propitiation puts away enmity and wrath of someone towards another.
Second, reconciliation is ending conflict and disagreement between two parties.

The Bible presents reconciliation in such a way that it is an act of God. God is the one the must be reconciled to us because of His demands for justice. We are reconciled by Christ's death and much more by his life. Yet, our nature is not reconciled to God in the gospel. The flesh remains at enmity against God. The reconciliation which is present and talked about in the Bible is complete past tense action. We are at peace with God already. So this reconciliation must be just as forensic as justification. Otherwise, our reconciliation would follow some other path which includes dissolving our enmity in the flesh. (aka sanctification.) Christ is can scarcely be called the only mediator between God and man in such an arrangement.

This should make it clear that it is not our reconciliation to God but God towards us is presented in the Bible. God's holiness and justice require an answer. His demands are answered in Christ alone. The ministry of the reconciliation is the ministry of gospel. The apostles are said to be ministers of reconciliation. It is likewise God's wrath, as an outflowing of his justice and enmity towards sinners, that must be dealt with in Christ for us to be reconciled. God cannot give up his justice by withholding His wrath. I cannot see how propitiation (turning wrath away) can be divorced from reconciliation or the even gospel. It God's Holy enmity towards sinners which must be reconciled. It is all an act of God by which reconciliation takes place. Wrath cannot be pour out twice if a hypothetical unbeliever is propitiated but not reconciled. Such a dispensing of wrath is unjust. I cannot accept any propitiation for those who do not inherit salvation because of how it relates to reconciliation.

A Potential Calvinist Response to 1 John 2:2

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

- 1 John 2:2

I believe that this passage has a multiplicity of meanings, so here is how I walk out interpreting it:

This passage fits within the fabric of a book that is designed to show forth the importance of the assurance of salvation, particularly through the abiding nature of Christ. This is true in the form of I John being addressed initially to Christians (1:1-4), proceeding to address the assurance of salvation for Christians (1:5-9), speaking of how Christ himself is a Christian's assurance, and presenting Christ as the counter-measure against Christian condemnation (2:1). Since this letter seems to be addressed exclusively to Christians (at least up to this point), I assume that this portion of the letter is concerning Christians exclusively.

Another piece to this hermeneutical puzzle is the word John uses for world which is the Koine Greek word "kosmos." This is a broad and sweeping word that almost never means the same thing twice. In fact, it means many different things such as, but not limited to:

· Order
· Regular Disposition
· Ornament
· Decoration
· Embellishment
· Material Universe
· Aggregate of Sensitive Experience
· Lower World
· Aggregate of Mankind
· The Public
· Present Order of Things
· Secular World
· Human Race External to the Jewish Race
· The Heathen World
· The World External to the Christian Body
· The Elect
· Material System of the Mosaic Covenant

Here is a supporting link although it has less information than my Greek Lexicon: http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2889.

Something that is common with Greek writing is the usage of a certain literary device that involves the usage of a single term and applying it to a great deal of lexicon. Whereas the Apostle Paul’s writings do not use this very often, the Apostle John’s writings have a unique and large a propensity to employ this technique. A great example of this is found in John 1:10:

“He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.”

In this passage John uses the term “world” (aka “kosmos”) in at least two different contexts within a single sentence. To apply this within the realm of my interpretation, I think that it is very important to determine the meaning of the term “world” through the context of the book and passages surrounding it. To begin in this inquiry, I argue that that the context of 1 John 2:2 is not concerning the "world," in the sense of the physical universe with the reasons being:

1. In this verse, the sins of the whole world are being propitiated.
2. The universe never sinned, only is arguably effect by original sin.
3. Therefore, if the universe never sinned then the sins of the universe cannot be propitiated.

Therefore, I propose that “world” could be referring to the spiritual realm of humanity instead of to the physical universe. But, this only narrows the problem as:

1. Only the sin of one who is saved is propitiated before God.
2. God predestined the elect.
3. Not all people are the elect.
4. Not all people are saved.
5. If not all people are saved, then not all sin is propitiated.

After contemplating the context of the letter and the above argument, I propose that the meaning of “world” is exclusively the Christian spiritual world (aka the elect), as this is the only world in which all sin is propitiated in. Therefore, a possible interpretation of 1 John 2:2 is: Christ is a propitiation not only for our sins (being a part of the elect), but for the sins of all of elect. In observing that this statement lines up with scripture as a whole and fits the context of the passage in question, one could conclude that this "whole world" is actually the "entire elect." Therefore, this passage could potentially be stating Christ's efficacy to the elect.

Another way of interpreting this passage is to argue from the perspective of the literary device that is used in this passage which is called "from the greater comes the lesser” and use the concept I named “Hypothetical Potential.” This argument would go as such:

1. Christ is a propitiation that is a sufficient payment for all of the potential sin of the world.
2. Christ is a propitiation that is a sufficient payment for all of the different kinds of potential sin in the world.
3. Christ is a propitiation that is a sufficient payment for all of the potential individual people who sin in the world at any given time(s) or place(s) of the world regardless of their membership of different people groups in the world.
4. The only requirement to have sins propitiated for is to be human, to have the gift of faith, and the gift of repentance.
5. Therefore if Christ is a propitiation that is a sufficient payment for all of the potential amount of sin, kinds of sin, towards all individuals of all groups, at all possible places, at all possible times, I am human, I have the gift of faith, and I have the gift of repentance, then my sins will be propitiated for by Christ.

Therefore, if viewed in a different light than the first possible interpretation, this passage could refer to the sufficiency of Christ's atoning action found in the potential ability and capacity of Christ's infinite death to satisfy the infinite worth transgressed by sin in humanity to satisfy the infinite wrath of God.

How wonderful this Gospel is! That Christ would come into the world to save sinners from their folly and reconcile them to God. What grace and condescension! I am very much aware that I am a great sinner, but Christ is an ever greater Savior!

To Kelfer

Jon said this in one of his prior posts.

"I think that the only truthful way to deal with the theological issue at hand is to state that Christ has the hypothetical potential to be a ransom for all, but is actually a ransom for only the elect. This is regardless of any speculative ‘infinite overflow of payment’ or speculative ‘exact payment’ that occurred when God ransomed God’s elect."

Do you think that this "hypotetical potential" that you speak of is an answer for 1 John 2:2? Or do you find it to be irrelevant to this verse? Could we speak of Christ "being a ransom" in the sense that his death is sufficient to cover their sins, even if they do not come to Christ and never were intended to come to Christ?

Let me know what you think.

The next stage of the debate

I believe that Dave is right about Christ's intersessory prayer being only for the elect, and that raises a very good question: "If Christ isn't praying for the non-elect, how could it be said that He died for them?" Ppoints were also made about how it is difficult to be logically consistent holding Unconditional Election and Irresistable Grace, while rejecting Limited Atonement. I acknowledge this, and recognize that my stated position is not logically clear. However, it seems to me to be what the areas in scripture that relate directly to the atonement teach.

What I would like to focus on now is what do the scriptures teach directly about the extent of the atonement? I know that the other points of doctrine that are clear in scripture are relevant to this discussion as they are connected logically, but I will try to correct my logic if it is clear that scripture teaches something different about the atonement directly, and that this point is clear in scripture. So far, this seems to be the case from my limited inquiry into the matter, but I don't understand the implications of it.

Can we focus our discussion on the texts that I cited in my first post, as well as any other atonement-relevant texts, either from the OT system or those that talk specifically about Christ's atonement?

Thanks.

-Paul

Christ's Intercessory Prayers

Hi, I am Dave and I am new to the blog. So... I thought I would continue my theological comments on limited atonement. In order to complete my thoughts. Also to examine it slightly differently.

Christ sits on the throne of God at the Father's right hand interceding for the saints but what does His intercessory prayer consist of? I think we only need to look at what He prayed about on earth.

First, John 16 suggests that Christ's intercessory prayer isn't for asking God for us since God is already for us. Thus, I believe His prayers includes the desires outlined in John 17. This is enough to powerfully prove certain aspects of limited atonement. First, it is within Christ's authority to grant salvation to those given Him by the Father. So he alone must.

Second, He does not pray for the world but only the saints. He says He specifically does not pray for the world. He continues to talk about many things and he extends the prayer but since he says he does not pray for the world it means that this extension is from just the apostles to the saints. I don't think any other interpretation fits what Christ means in saying he does not pray for the world so blatantly.

Third, He prays for the saints protection and perserverance. This is granted. So it makes more difficult to divorce John 17 from Christ's intercession.

Fourth, Christ says that He makes known God's name and will continue to make known God's name. (Even in heaven? How is He effectually doing such?) This is followed by a final prayer that God's love for him to be in them and himself to be in them. Furthermore, Christ being in them includes justification. I believe justification comes from our union to Christ.

Now, my view of intercession and atonement/justification/salvation being related seems speculative but I think it is a solid and biblical. It is tied with the temple system's day of atonement and Christ's act as described in Hewbrews. I find these things tied to showing what God's intent is. The High priest is meant to intercede for a particular people. Christ is our high priest. Bible editors rightly attribute this section to Christ's priestly prayer with a small (unbiblical) title. It is hard to make it anything else. This has many more implifications that I have not scratched fully. I think Christ continually sends the Spirit in different ways. Not just for sanctification. I think He also sends the Spirit by this intercession, in ways that include regeneration and bringing someone to faith.

Finally, you must ask yourself. Does Christ pray for the same in heaven? Yes (Or Does He change his mind in offering Himself? No) He gets what he prayers for in its entirety. Is Christ of the same mind as God, The Father on this? Yes.

I think this scatters most other opinions. Christ can scarcely die for someone if He doesn't also intercede for them; if he does not also actually atone for them.

I will try to address the contrary text more since it seems that they are easy to get stuck on. And many people have issues with them.

The differnce between four and five point Calvinists

I pulled this quote off of a comment here. http://submerging.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2007/08/08/amyraldism/

"hmmm….I’m having trouble seeing the significance of the difference between 4 and 5 pointers.
4 and 5 Pointers both say that:–we all owe 1 million dollars (random large number)–God writes a check to pay this debt for some of the poor people with no money who are standing in a deep pit they can’t climb out of and can’t reach up to grab the check from God
5 Pointers say that God writes the names of some of those trapped ones on individual checks and lifts those people out and gives them the check.
4 Pointers say that God writes an individual check for each person in the pit with their name on it and shows it to each person in the pit. But they can’t reach the checks with their name on it. So he selects some of the trapped ones out and gives them their checks and the other checks go uncashed.
The 5 pointers seem to have a God that is more efficient, but in the end it seems like an insignificant difference." by commenter doctor winters

This description seems accurate. Dave and Jon, do you see a significant theological difference between Calvinism and Amyraldism on the conception of the atonement? Do you believe Amyraldism to be heretical on this point?