Featured Unconditional Election

Both could.

I have a Baptist friend who taught math at a Presbyterian school. The students often boasted about their election in contrast to those who they believed may not have been chosen. This was the reason my friend withdrew her children and left the school (she taught there because as a benefit her children could attend without cost).

And, of course, conditional election could foster boasting because of the condition that merited election.

 

The difference is as one boasting in earning a reward or winning a prize and one boasting in an unearned gift.

The problem, however, is one of relevancy. You seem to divorce their view of conditional election from their doctrine and place it into yours to "prove" them wrong. When discussing Arminianism (which is where you have limited the discussion) you have ignored thge fact that even in the choices of men they believe none come except by the work of the Spirit. In other words, Arminianism holds to the depravity of men, who can be saved only by the work of the Spirit.

I believe Arminianism to be inconsistent, but they cannot (by their own doctrine) boast but in the Lord.

 

Yes. But what you are calling "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are based on the articles of the Remonstrance and the Calvinistic response in terms of the Synod of Dort (the five articles and the five points). The articles and the points are not comprised of stand alone doctrines - they work together to form each position.

You cannot pull apart one point from the whole. The Arminian view of conditional election includes:

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerat man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ."

So Arminianism cannot boast in their own choice in election because their doctrine teaches otherwise. You may think their reasoning inconsistent, but you can't ascribe to them beliefs that they do not hold based on your own theology.

 

What you are arguing against is not Arminianism but conditional election within the context of an otherwise Calvinistic view.

The evidence of this error is found in the Articles which express Arminian belief.

 

The issue with this thread is that it assumes Arminianism gives the credit of salvation to man. While the logic is debatable, the articles prove this conclusion false because they specifically address this objection. Those who argue otherwise extract one issue in Arminianism and argue it within their own context.

Likewise, the conclusion that Calvinism denies human free agency is false because the points of Calvinism specifically address this objection (men freely choose disobedience). Those who argue otherwise extract one issue in Calvinism and argue it within their own context.

Is it fun? It can be. Is it honest? Not really.

 

JonC, I have been saying over and over again that Arminianism, as it originally was presented, was not the revisionist "Arminianism" we see today.

James Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED minister and theologian, His only disagreement was with Unconditional Election. He believed election was conditioned on God's foreknowledge that the person would one day believe, and that God elected him on the basis of His knowledge of that eventual belief.

But even Arminius believed that person only believed because of the Grace of God enabling that belief.