Kay

Mark,
Now we see why you write things like:
“They want to hold onto God working, but equally hold onto autonomous free will.”

and then Cheryl has to explain with:
“The classical Arminian position does not hold to a completely “autonomous” free will since their view is that without God’s power enabling, no one could have a free will at all.”

and you said this:
“Now the atonement is clear in my view. Either it atoned and achieved a purpose or it didn’t.An Arminian position saids it didn’t achieve forgiveness, just that it made it possible, if people would just reach out and grab it.”

…to which I must say, this is not the Arminian position either.

Even before God created the universe He foreknew those who would trust in Christ’s blood and so be saved. But even if no one ever put trust in Christ, His sacrifice would still serve as the atonement provided. If all rejected that blood it would be tragic but God’s love nor His grace would have failed as a result.

Because a man rejects God’s atonement that does not make it void in any way. Does it? To say that it would is *man centered*, especially for those who hold to Calvinism and claim to disdain “man centered” theology. It would make the significance of God’s sacrifice dependent on man’s reception. But God’s justice would be vindicated even if every person rejected the provision of Christ’s shed blood. Right?

You object that Christ would shed His blood for those He foreknew would reject that provision. The first problem with this suggestion is it presumes to know what God would and would not do. This is again a surprising objection coming from someone who holds to God’s sovereignty to do just as He pleases (and of course Arminians believe God has the freedom to do as He pleases as well). But if God has indeed revealed that He provides atonement for those He foreknows will reject that provision, Arminians could just use the favorite Calvinist response to such objections, “Who are you O’ man to talk back to God?”

We can see from Scripture that God makes provisions even for those He knows will ultimately reject those provisions. This truth can be seen in the parable of the banquet described by Jesus in Matt. 22:1-14 and Luke 14:16-24.

In both of these accounts, it is obvious that the feast was prepared for those who would refuse the invitation (specifically the Jews). The invitation went out to them and the invitation was genuine. (God does not lie) They refused the invitation and angered the host. Now if the feast was not intended or prepared for these Jews, then why was the host angry with them when they would not come? According to the Calvinist objection, he never intended for them to come and made no provision for them, so there would be no cause for anger.

Now, look at Matt. 22:4. After the initial invitation was refused, the king sent his servants a second time saying,
“Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.”
Those invited refuse again and mistreated the servants. He then says,
“The wedding banquet is ready; those I invited did not deserve to come.”

Notice the reason why the guests were refused was not because the dinner was not provided for them, but *because they refused the invitation*, and by refusing proved unworthy to attend.

If the banquet had not been provided for them, then the king has no reason to be angry with them for not attending. According to Calvinism, the king never intended for them to attend – so, that would mean he lied when he told the guests that the dinner had been prepared for them. The issue, then, is not foreknowledge, but the genuineness of the offer and the integrity of God making the offer.

The idea that the response was the result of being already ‘elect’ needs to be read into the text and directly conflicts with the fact that the feast was prepared for all those to whom the invitation went out – even those who rejected that invitation.

As Cheryl has pointed out several times, Arminians do not need to redefine the term ‘many’ to mean ‘few’ as Calvinists do.