Let?s examine these terms closely.
ENLIGHTENED?compare to John 1:9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, ENLIGHTENS EVERY man.
Definitely not a salvation term. If EVERY man is enlightened this also includes the unsaved.
TASTED THE HEAVENLY GIFT?compare to Matt. 26:26 ....Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, ?Take, EAT; this is My body.? & John 6:51 ?I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone EATS of this bread, he shall live forever; .....?
Also not a salvation term (IMHO). If the author wanted to communicate these were saved individuals, why didn?t He use the term ?....EATEN of ...? instead of ?tasted of ....?
PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT?compare to Eph. 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were SEALED with the Holy Spirit of promise, & Titus 3:5 He saved us, ....by the ....RENEWING by the Holy Spirit, & 2Tim. 1:14 ...the Holy Spirit who DWELLS in us.... & Mark 1:8 ?...but He will BAPTIZE you with the Holy Spirit.?.
Why didn?t he use terms such as ?sealed with...? or ?baptized in.....? or ?indwelt with....?? And surely if an unsaved person can be enlightened by the H.S., he can also be a partaker in Him.
TASTED THE GOOD WORD OF GOD?compare to 1John 2:14 ...Because you are strong, and the word of God ABIDES in you, And you have overcome the wicked one.
and also..
KJV: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
An interesting point is made with: 'Does God foreknow because he foreordains or does he foreordain because he foreknows?' The latter seems to please Arminians; the former seems to please Calvinists" ( Un Conditioning ). Although, i think both sides have habitually bastardized what Rom. 8:29 is trying to say (perhaps another passage for you to cover in suppliment to your TULIP articles? just a thought). To narrow the view down a bit, i further propose that the contention between the views is, what is predestination contingent on? i would argue that the traditional Arminian supposes that "whosoever believes" are predestined to salvation (and to be conformed to the likeness of his Son); whereas Calvinists suppose that folks are predestined to salvation and belief, according to God's unrevealed will (or plan, purpose, or good pleasure). i think that these views are the only ones that could conceivably be interpreted from Scripture.
John Wesley places the source of the contention in the form of a dilemma, "'Is predestination absolute or conditional?' The Arminians believe, it is conditional; the Calvinists, that it is absolute." ( What Is an Arminian? , paragraph 10). I think this is a helpful approach, though i prefer starting from Previent Grace and working the other way.
now on General Atonement, the Arminian doctrine, there is a bit of ambiguity. The original creed made by the Remonstrants says this:
- That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, ?For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.? And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: ?And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.?
(The Remonstrant Articles, Article 2). The actual ambiguity isn't obvious, but i have observed two distinct interpretations of the doctrine.
1) that Christ actually suffered for all in the sense that his blood covers all sins, and it is disbelief that keeps people from being saved. (i've seen a couple on the CARM forums hold this view)
2) that Christ suffered for all, so that his blood would cover the sins of anyone who believes. in this view atonement is limited in a sense, but by man's belief/disbelief, rather than God's absolute election. (Jaltus, myself, and a few others here hold this one)
I believe that the second position is the most biblical and theologically sound, though i can see how some might come to the first interpretation from verses like 1Jn. 2:2. Interestingly enough, an adherent to the latter view would not disagree at all with your language: "Christ suffered sufficiently to atone for all the world's sins, but suffered effectively only for the elect" (Within Limits); that is, so long as it is recognized that "elect" and "believers" are roughly equivalent (which is obviously true, but remember that Calvinists load the term "elect" differently from Arminians). Where we contrast from Calvinism's Limited Atonement is that in their view it is impossible for any person who is not elect to be atoned for (hence it is limited in the most literal sense). On the other hand, we believe that the nonelect could have been atoned for, since anyone could have believed in Christ. As you see, our respective positions on atonement are closely related to how each side views the belief-election relationship.
in regards to Apostasy and Anxiety, my personal view of Conditional Assurance (people use the term "Conditional Eternal Security." i think it is oxymoronic, but oh well), is pretty much along the same lines. And in fact, a lot of Arminians i have chatted with have come to the same conclusion.
In conclusion, IT may possibly be thought, that there is no great need of going about to define or describe the Will; this word being generally as well understood as any other words we can use to explain it: and so perhaps it would be, not philosophers, metaphysicians, and polemic divines, brought the matter into obscurity by the things they have said of it. But since it is so, I think it may be of some use, and will tend to greater clearness in The following discourse, to say a few things concerning it.
(1)And therefore I observe, that the Will (without any metaphysical refining) is, That by which the mind chooses any thing. The faculty of the will, is that power, or principle of mind, by which it is capable of choosing: an act of the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.
If any think it is a more perfect definition of the will, to say, that it is that by which the soul either chooses or refuse, I am content with it; though I think it enough to say, it is that by which the soul chooses: for in every act of will whatsoever, (2) the mind chooses one thing rather than another; it chooses something rather than the contrary or rather than the want or non-existence of that thing.
(3) So in every act of refusal, the mind chooses the absence of the thing refused; the positive and the negative are set before the mind for its choice, and it chooses the negative; and the mind's making its choice in that case is properly the act of the Will: (4)the Will's determining between the two, is a voluntary determination; but that is the same thing as making a choice.
(5)So that by whatever names we call the act of the Will, choosing, refusing, approving, disapproving, liking, disliking, embracing, rejecting, determining, directing, commanding, forbidding, inclining, or being averse, being pleased or displeased with; all may be reduced to this of choosing.
For the soul to act voluntarily, is evermore to act electively. Mr. Locke (1) says, " (6) The Will signifies nothing but a power or ability to prefer or choose." And, in the foregoing page, he says, "The word preferring seems best to express the act of volition;" but adds, that "it does it not precisely; for, though a man would prefer flying to walking, yet who can say he ever wills it?"
(7) But the instance he mentions, does not prove that there is any thing else in willing, but merely preferring: for it should be considered what is the immediate object of the will, with respect to a man's walking, or any other external action; which is not being removed from one place to another; on the earth or through the air; these are remoter objects of preference; but such or such an immediate exertion of himself.
The thing next chosen, or preferred, when a man wills to walk is not his being removed to such a place where he would be, but such an exertion and motion of his legs and feet &c, in order to it. And his willing such an alteration in his body in the present moment, is nothing else but his choosing or preferring such an alteration in his body at such a moment, or his liking it better than the forbearance of it.
(8)And God has so made and established the human nature, the soul being united to a body in proper state that the soul preferring or choosing such an immediate exertion or alteration of the body, (8a)such an alteration instantaneously follows.
"When faced with compelling evidence of the joys of heaven, and torment of hell, is it possible for depraved man to perferr heaven over hell. Is not even his preference of heaven in keeping with his sinful nature. After all, we do not seek heaven for any other reason than the joys that it brings.." Bottom line, all choice demands preexsting criteria. In reguard to election, it is believed that God choose some individuals over others. None pretend to know what criteria God used. Doesn't matter. For it must be logically concluded that God choose based on criteria that was found in this elect that was not found in those not chosen.