Monday, June 29, 2009

The full response to Tony Byrne, and sufficient refutation of Neo-Amyraldism [AMMENDED]

I have finally finished the response to the Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne, which can be found here. Here are the subtopics in the paper itself.

I. Biblical teachings and logical errors
I.1.1 On God’s desire

I.1.2 Non-decretive desires?

I.1.3 Deducing intentions from imperatives?

I.1.4 Illogicity runs amok

I.2.1 Distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church

I.2.2 What applies to the collective may not be applicable to the individual; the logical fallacy of division

I.2.4 Understanding Covenant Theology and its idea of the universal offer

II. Interpretation of historical sources
II.1.1 Context of John Bunyan and his writings

II.1.2 The context and proper interpretation of his work

II.1.3 Rebuttal of Byrne’s interpretive fallacies

III. Conclusive rebuttal and practical concerns
III.1 The logical fallacy of quote-mining

III.2 Conclusive rebuttal of Byrne’s fanciful theories

IV. Conclusion

Section one of the response was previously posted on the blog here, and the PDF contains the remainder of my response to Tony Byrne, both in refuting his Neo-Amyraldism according to the Scriptures, his quote-mining methodology, and his misquotation of historical sources.

Here is the abstract, if you like, of the paper.

The Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne has quoted John Bunyan in one of his blog posts in asserting that Bunyan believes in the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I have refuted Byrne’s eisegesis of Bunyan and came up with an alternative interpretation. In reply, Byrne attempted a proper response to prove that his interpretation is correct, or at least highly probable. In this paper, I would address the issue of God’s desires, interpret Bunyan’s quote in context, and refute Byrne’s interpretation of Bunyan as being acontextual and thus reading of foreign concepts into the text.

Add (30th June 2009): I have made some minor changes to the article (typo and the section regarding John Preston) to touch it up.


Beng said...

Reading slowly through it right now. There are a few instances where "perceptive" should actually be "preceptive", I think.

Some very good points to Chew on. Oops, was that a pun? Sorry. ;)

PuritanReformed said...


Oops... thanks. I have made some minor changes to the paper now.

Beng said...

In thinking about the universal offer, Matt 22:14 comes to mind: "Many are called but few are chosen."

The entire parable (Matt 22:1-14) really serves to illustrate the difference between the universal call (those who were invited to wedding feast) and the effectual call (those who finally (and legitimately) attend it.

In fact there are three groups of people in that parable:

1. Those who are called and invited to the gospel feast - all who hear the gospel call. It is telling that not a single one is interested in attending (Rom 3:10-18).

2. Those who are gathered ("both good and bad") to attend the wedding feast. This would be the visible church.

3. Those who are there legitimately - clothed in the wedding garment of Christ - the invisible church. These are the chosen ones - those whom God intended to save from before the foundation of the world. There will be those attending the wedding feast who do not belong there - false professors, clothed not in Christ but with a false confession. These will be cast into outer darkness.

PuritanReformed said...


Agreed. With regards to the first invitation which was universally rejected, it must be understood that the parable was spoken against the Jews who rejected the Gospel en masse, thus those who were "officially" invited to the feast were the Jews as a covenant people and they all reject Christ.