Radical Depravity - Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that every aspect of our being was damaged through the Fall and we can do nothing to save ourselves,
but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we retain the image of God despite our fallenness.
This demonstrates fundamental confusion over the meaning of total depravity. There is not a Calvinist anywhere who believes we do not retain the image of God. Total depravity does not at all mean that we are as bad as we possibly can be, without any hint of goodness, only that sin penetrates every aspect of our beings, and creation, for that matter.
Overcoming Grace – Compared with irresistible grace, overcoming grace affirms that God accomplishes salvation, but differs in that rather than salvation being a mechanical and deterministic process, it allows for even sinful, obstinate humans to respond to God’s persistent wooing.
MMMM....kinda on the fence with this one. Irresistible grace basically means the same thing in that it allows humans to come to faith despite their flesh.
Sovereign Election - In contrast to the double predestinarianism of unconditional election, God sovereignly elects those whom He foreknows will respond to Him.
That is a very, very strange theological argument. It's almost laughable. It's like saying that God knew Pharaoh would not believe, and so God chose to harden Pharaoh's heart so he didn't have a choice. Silly and a very obvious attempt to distance oneself from Reformed theology without entering into any serious theological dialogue.
Eternal Life - The phrase “perseverance of the saints” might suggest that although we are saved by grace, we are kept by our good works. The phrase “Once saved, always saved” could suggest that we could claim Christ as Savior without making Him Lord of our lives.
George prefers eternal life or eternal security to convey the scriptural truth of the assurance of the believer.
Wow - I always thought that perseverance of the saints was one of the most beautiful reformed doctrines. It in no way, shape or form suggests that we are kept by good works. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of Calvin's doctrines should get this. Perseverance of the saints is purely, simply about grace. "Eternal security" is nothing short of a fake doctrine intended to make an Arminian theology more palatable or to make people feel better. You will not find this doctrine spoken in this way prior to the 19th century.
Singular Redemption - Finally, unlike limited atonement, singular redemption communicates that Jesus’ death was sufficient to save everyone but is efficient only for those who repent and believe.
This is purely academic. Either way, Jesus' atonement is sufficient for all who believe.
The difference with the two camps is more an issue of perspective. For Calvin (or, really, Beza, since he put a lot of words into Calvin's mouth) sovereignty should be preserved at all points. Calvinism is not at all about God sending people to heaven or hell. It is purely a "top-down" theology. Arminianism wants to believe that we can be in charge of our own lives and destiny, which is partially true, since to our perceptions, we have freedom of choice. It is a "bottom-up" theology.
Instead of drawing a distinct position in either camp, I find it better to take the strengths of each. I also believe that we should more easily live with dichotomy and tension, trusting that it is in God's hands, not mine, and that my own assurance of faith lies in Christ's redemptive work, not in my own feelings. Also, in either case, anyone who feels God's call on their lives can make a faith response.
This is somewhat cliche, but I like the thought that on the outside of heaven's gates, there is a sign that says "Whosoever Will May Come," while on the inside, there is a sign that says "Saved from the Foundation of the World."
