Yes, I agree with you that the posts are becoming excessively long. I will try to make my answer here much more abbreviated. I agree with most everything you have written about Calvinism, but disagree with most everything you have written about Arminianism. For the sake of brevity, I will boil down all the claims you have made that I disagree with.


_______________________________________
You seem to claim that, in the Arminian system:

1) Infants are an exception to the rule that God cannot, is not able to, and is completely powerless to save those who do not have faith

2) Unregenerates have unfettered free-will, and are no longer considered slaves to sin.

3) God does NOT have the power to save everyone. If He does not save everyone, it is not due to sovereign choice, but due to a lack of power.

4) Salvation itself (not faith, but justification and regeneration) is synergistic. Man accomplishes part of the process of justifying or regenerating himself.

5) Knowledge alone causes God to act in election. He has no desires or volition of His own in the matter.

6) Man has free-will such that God cannot know for CERTAIN what man will do at any specific point in time.

7) And therefore, Arminians are damned heretics (for the most part).
_______________________________________

On the other hand, this is not at all what Arminians or Arminius himself taught. And I can tell you think from what I have read from Arminus, what I have read in articles written by the current Society of Evangelical Arminians, what I have heard from the many many many Arminians whom I have known, that none of points 1-7 is true:

1) Arminians teach that God CAN and IS ABLE TO and HAS ENOUGH POWER to do anything that He wants. To give you a quote: “Our God is the God of the impossible; He's a God who can do anything (that) He allows Himself to do.” In the majority of cases, infants being excepted, God only chooses intentionally (according to His sovereign will) to save those who have faith.

Yet you claim that they believe or teach that this is because God lacks the power to save people who do not have faith. But in fact, it is due to His will, and not a lack of power, that He does this. I will not punch the wall today. With your logic, you must deduce that I choose not to punch the wall because I lack the physical strength to do so – but in my view, it is because I intentionally choose not to. It is ridiculous for you to argue that God does not save all, in the Arminian view, because He is powerless to do so. I challenge you to give me one classical Arminian quote that specifically teaches this doctrine of God's inability.

2) Unregenerates have unfettered free-will, and are no longer considered slaves to sin.
Arminians believe that all people have free-will in two ways: that they self-determine their choices (and are therefore responsible for what they have determined), and that they are, by the grace of God, able to believe in Christ. There are many types of freedom that this “free will” does not contain: for instance, it is not a freedom of power – a person with free-will in this view is not “free to defy gravity” for that is a question of power and not choice.

Secondly, “unfettered” cannot be applied to unregenerate people, since their free-will (free in the above two ways) in the Arminian view is still enslaved to sin. And will remain enslaved until they believe in Christ, are saved and the power of sin over their life is broken.

You admit yourself that your view of Arminian-free-will comes from Calvinists, such as John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards. They obviously did not know what Arminian free-will consists it, since what they spoke against is not what Arminians believe. Why don't you instead ask a knowledgeable Arminian what the Arminian view is?


3) This is your most obvious flaw. You say that in Arminianism, “God does NOT have the power to save everyone.” The reason you give for believing this is that Arminianism “God” does not save a single sinner who does not believe on Christ, and therefore, you conclude, if God does not do something, it must imply that He is unable to do it.

That's a logical fallacy. By that logic, God (in Calvinism) created only two humans in the Garden of Eden, and therefore we can conclude that this was because in Calvinism God lacked the ability or power to create more than two humans at that time.

You will say, “rubbish! That does not logically follow.” And I would agree. If God CHOOSES to do something or not do something, it does not logically imply that He must simply lack the power. Yet if you cling to saying “God didn't, therefore He can't,” then you must apply that to Calvinism as well and say that God cannot ever have done anything other than He did, because He didn't have enough power.

4) Salvation itself (not faith, but justification and regeneration) is monergistic. According to Arminianism, faith is what requires cooperation. Salvation (including election, justification, regeneration, and glorification) is monergistic, while salvation (sanctification) is also synergistic.

Man does not, in this view, accomplish part of the process of justifying or regenerating himself. It is only when “faith” is seen as part of “salvation” that people can say “Arminians believe that salvation is synergistic.” And this saying is misleading, for then it sounds like they are claiming that Arminians believe that justification or regeneration is synergistic.

Unfortunately, Arminians have been called “synergists” for so long that most accept the label without really thinking about what it means, or how it might be misunderstood. But again, if you disagree, I challenge you to give me one Arminian quote stating that man assists God in justifying or regenerating him.

5) Your claim is that (according to Arminianism) knowledge alone causes God to act in election; that He has no desires or volition of His own in the matter. This is nonsense. My position is not “totally erroneous,” it is based on my readings from Arminian writers, speaking with many many Arminians, and so on. Not ONE believes what you claim they do – that knowledge causes behavior.

It is true, as you said, that election is grounded upon "foreseen faith," and that is it conditional. It is conditional because God's will is only to save people upon condition. If God has a will in the matter, it blows your claim that God has no desires or volition in the matter to pieces. God's will is a motive, and motives motive action.

No one with an once of brain in their head would believe that knowledge (rather than motive) could possible cause or determine any behavior. Knowledge is used in conjuntion with motive to execute a certain decision. Knowledge does not replace motive. God uses knowledge of who will have faith in conjuntion with His motive to save those who have faith in order to elect specific people to salvation ahead of time.

Knowledge is not a motive. That's why Articifical Intelligence is not real at this point. The computers have knowledge, that is, they store facts. But facts are NOT the same as motivation. Your argument is that since God uses knowledge – that He uses His knowledge of who will have faith – in order to decide who He wants to save, that God has no motivation... that knowledge (and not motive of any sort) propels Him. That is nonsense. It is not only untrue about the Arminian position, but it's also simply ridiculous.

Does a child steal a cookie “only because” he knows where the cookies are?
Of course not! He steals it, using his knowledge of where it is, because he WANTS a cookie.
Motive, not knowledge, motivates behavior.


6) Now, I don't blame you for thinking that, in Arminianism, man has free-will such that God cannot know for CERTAIN what man will do at any specific point in time. It's a hard concept to get one's head around, but I shall explain it to you as simply as I can.

1 – Any behavior that is determined is absolutely certain
2 – Anything certain can be known even by those who did not determine it
3 – In Arminianism, man determines his own choices
4 – Therefore, his choices are certain
5 – God can know things for certain even about things He did not determine, which we know from point 2.

Now, you may disagree with this. You have, in fact, postulated that man is capable of knowing things that he did not determine, but that God is not capable of that. That God knows all because He causes/decrees all, and further that that is the only possible way God would be able to know everything.

But even given those beliefs that you hold, you cannot deny that the Arminians (not open theists) hold to points 1 through 5, as listed above. Arminian free-will, then, is compatable with God knowing everything for certain. Molinism goes a step beyond and says that God also knows what any being would do in any hypothetical situation. Many Arminians follow many aspects of Molinism as well.

“Then the doctrine of free-will is null and void for this would eliminate any possibility of a man choosing contrary to what God foresaw and decreed.” - You

Free-will = self-determined, in this case. Man cannot possibly choose contrary to what God foresaw, because man's choice at that time is certain. Yet who made it certain? The man himself is the determinant. He made the choice certain. Therefore, though it is certain, it is free-will because the determinant was the man himself.

7) I won't get into this with you. I will merely say that I disagree, and I've only ever talked to one other Calvinist who agreed with you that self-professed born-again believers, living Godly lives, beliving in Arminianism theology are (most all of them) damned and going to hell.