Arminian Security

A wise Christian brother of mine and I often spar over the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, and I thought I'd share a response I recently gave on a deterministic view of salvation. My first rendetion of the fictional dialogue was a little over simplistic, so I added in some acknowledged insight given by my debate partner. The added insight is given in blue:
____________________________________________________________________________

Alright, in light of what you said last night, here's a new and improved and less perceivablly-though-not-actually-strawmanish fictional dialogue. Let me know if you think this is any better:

My problems/perspective with Calvinism can be summed up in this imaginary conversation between a nonbeliever and a Calvinist:

NB: I don’t know much about Christianity, but I’m interested. I’ve always thought intuitively that there’s something after death and that we’ll be held accountable in some way for the decisions we make while alive. What’s the Christian perspective on the after life?

C: The Christian view is that there is Heaven and Hell; Heaven is the place where we are eternally united with God, where we will live the life He intends for us in infinite love and fulfillment. Hell is a place of eternal separation from God, where we experience the punishment we rightly deserve for our sins.

NB: What’s the Christian view on who goes to either place?

C: Well, there’s the elect and the non-elect. God has predetermined the number of all people who will be in Heaven and Hell before the beginning of time, and we have nothing to do with it. His call is immutable and irrevocable.

NB: So, either we’re elect or we’re not? If we’re elect we can’t resist His call, and if we’re non-elect, it doesn’t matter what we think of God or how badly we want Him, we’re going to Hell and there’s no hope for salvation?

C: Yes, although it is important to keep in mind that the existential factors of a person's inner desires for God and the fruits of the Holy Spirit in his life are themselves evidences of election. It wouldn't make any sense for God to move in a person's life so that he lives in obedience to the gospel if that person is not one of the elect.

NB: But really no matter what you do or say, or what I do or say, in the end, you and I are either elect or non-elect, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it?

C: Yes

This clarification makes a little more sense out of the issue for me, but it is still no guarantee. This is why I'm so struck by the irony that the one thing Calvinists so often accuse Arminians of (thinking our salvation is uncertain) is one of the things that most trouble Arminians about Calvinism. If I believed in deterministic soteriology, I could never be completely certain about my salvation. It definitely doesn't seem like God would string someone along, giving him a passionate desire for the gospel, empowering him to live the Christian life, experiencing conviction of sin and repentance, and then condemn the person at the end. But then again it also doesn't seem like there could be some people God would intentionally choose not to save. If his ways are higher than ours when it comes to determinism, whose to say he doesn't cause some non elect to live the Christian life and then withhold his mercy in the end? If I embraced determinism, the most I could say is that I'm 95% sure I'm one of the elect, but I won't know for completely sure until after death when I find out God's ultimate judgement.

From the Arminian perspective on the other hand, I'm completely sure of my salvation, because I know that God wants all people to be saved and freely offers his grace to all who want to surrender to Him. Because God is faithful (not that there could be any disagreement on that point), I never have to worry He'll get tired of me or decide--regardless of any choices I make--that he doesn't want to elect me, and so condemn me.

Also, while I do definitely believe it's possible for people to walk away from God (as I think is clear from passages like Heb. 6), and I do believe the choice of a person to accept God's grace is one He allows us all to make in a genuinely free, undetermined way, the freedom is in the beginning of the process--and even then is likely one small point in the midst of mountain of other things that are determined--but not so much toward the end. What I mean is that our decisions form us; they have a trajectory which, over time, can condition us to the point where we are no longer free to choose.

For example, I can remember walking around my college campus wrestling with the decision of whether or not to ask Leslie to marry me. I thought long and hard about it. It was definitely something I could have chosen not to do. But since I did make that choice, now 12 years in the future, not being married to her is not a choice, and not for any practical or logistical reasons, but because the love I have experienced in our relationship has so conditioned me that I could not now be in my right mind and choose not to be her husband. Some might say not being married to her would be a "psychological impossibility," just as it would be for one of us to throw one of our kids off a cliff. That's just not a choice we would ever make, because it's so contrary to the character God has formed in us.

I think it works in a similar way with God. When Christ calls his first disciples, certainly they had a choice to follow or to stay. (No doubt Judas had a choice in the betrayal or else Jesus would not have said it would have been better for him not to have been born). But over time, those who genuinely chose to surrender to Him were changed by Him in such a way that they could not do otherwise. I think this is a big factor in Peter's response to Christ's asking his disciples if they were going to leave in John 6: "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

MM