Calvinism teaches the doctrine of Unconditional Election.  Briefly stated, it is the idea that before the world began God chose (elected) who he would save, and who he would destine for reprobation and punishment.  It is called ‘Unconditional’ because there is no condition placed on humans or any action that we could do that could change that predestined election.  Regardless of what we do eternal bliss awaits those whom he chose, and eternal punishment awaits those he chose to be punished.  (Frankly I think that is enough to write off Calvinism but I’m trying to focus on the Election issue).

Arminianism teaches the doctrine of Conditional Election.  Again briefly stated, it is the idea that before the world began God had foreseen who would have faith in Christ and then predestined them.  Arminians are forced to say it like this because they (like the Calvinists) insist that God sees the future as a single certainty – that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future (Calvinists go a step further to say that God determines the future also).

The Arminian position on the conditionality of Election is not quite as ridiculous as the Calvinist position but it is a complete fudge in terms of finding and presenting a simple, elegant solution to something that is a simple reality.  It shows how unsuited to various ideas presented in the bible both worldviews are as they are stretched – they struggle to naturally deliver reasonable explanations that prove anywhere near satisfactory.  I also think is a bit of a let down (perhaps even an inconsistency) with the non-Calvinist doctrine of Unlimited Atonement (that Christ died for all without exception, not just those that would be saved in the end a la Calvinism’s Limited Atonement).  I can completely see why the Arminian is forced down this route: because they say God foresees the future exhaustively.  But I think there has to be a better route through than either of those formulations – I think my objection is that I really believe that salvation is genuinely open to all and is not the illusion that both Arminianism & Calvinism portray.

I think this also comes from my dislike at the doctrine of Total Depravity (which is held by just about all Protestant schools of thought) – the idea that without God first doing something in us we are incapable of responding positively toward him or of doing anything at all good.  For some this is an excuse (albeit a poor one) to say that a Christian doing a charitable act is somehow better than a non-Christian doing one (they believe that the goodness of an act is not found in the act but in the person – an altruistic act conducted by a non-believer must be an egoist one).  Silly, very silly.

Casting aside such obvious mistakes of application that aren’t even worth responding to, I do object to the mainstream position of the doctrine.  Just because we have become partially separated from God through the fall (hell or death (spiritual death I mean) being total, complete and final separation) doesn’t mean that we entirely lose our free-will – if that were the case we could not be held responsible at all – we would be no more responsible for our actions than animals are.  The idea that our free-will is fully lost because of the introduction of sin is an assumption and not found anywhere in scripture other than in overstating the intent of scriptures about becoming slaves through sin.

Anyway, I am sure a simpler way can be found through the Election issue than fudging it to fit.