Today I saw a book review of Tom Ascol’s book Whomever He Wills. The reviewer said this,
“Much of that [the book’s agressive and theologically dense nature] can be explained by the book’s immediate context, a full-on, all-out attack upon Calvinism by a group of Southern Baptist Arminian theologians in a recent book with a similar title, Whosoever Will.”
Notice: the reviewer refers to the non-Calvinists as Arminians. I’m pretty sure those non-Calvinists would dispute that and call themselves Traditionalists. But recently in a comment stream on another blog I made the following comment (to the administrator here Ken):
“By the way, at reformed.org, the preface to the Canons of Dordt says,’…Arminians taught election based on foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace.'”
If this accurate, it’s one of the reasons I cannot see much difference in Trads and Arminianism. That’s not meant to be a perjorative, just an observation.
Here’s my question for Calvinists or self-described Traditionalists: Given the description from reformed.org of Arminian theology, how are so-called Traditionalists NOT Arminian? I know Trads do not believe that a true believer can “lapse from grace.” But the other four points, “foreseen faith, universal atonement, partial depravity, resistible grace,” do seem to fit Traditionalist theology. If not, why not?
Les Prouty, 2013