The first objection involves a subject that’s very vast and beyond the purview of this essay; hence I will limit myself to the other three.
1. Scripture will not allow for a God who tries His best to save everyone in this lifetime.
First, let’s consider the Arminian premise with regards to salvation, namely, that God has done His part, and now the ball’s in our court. Our eternal destiny, therefore, hinges on our own personal response to the gospel. If this is true, then surely we ought to see it reflected in the manner of Christ’s preaching. We would expect that he preached with great urgency, as if trying to guide someone off a high ledge or coax them away from a devouring flame. We would also expect him to take great pains to make himself as clear as possible, so that no-one could misunderstand the drift of His words or the importance of their response to them. Is this what we encounter? No! In fact, we encounter the exact opposite. Jesus preached so that “seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted” (Mark 4:12). Far from trying to win converts, Christ actually preached so as not to win them!
We see a similar theme with regards to entire cities.
“Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” (Mt. 11:20-21)
Then we have the example of Paul’s conversion. Did God wait for Paul to respond to His grace? No, he wrought repentance in Paul while Paul was still breathing threats.
Instances of mass destruction, or damnation, if you will, are equally damaging to the Arminian argument. Consider the examples of the world in Noah’s day and of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Think about the implications of an entire city or the entire world being in a state of great wickedness. How can this happen if Arminianism is true? Think about it. According to Arminianism, we all have an equal chance at salvation. There’s a kind of moral neutrality whereby each person is free to either accept or reject Christ. You would expect, therefore, that acceptance and rejection rates would yield fairly comparable results from one place to another, or from one time period to another. For instance, for every hundred people, you would expect a certain number of people to exercise their free will in such a way that they become saved. Let’s suppose that number is 20. This means for every 1000 people, you could expect approximately 200 people to be saved. Under this model, you would expect that in a city of say 10,000, you would find that about 2000 people are saved. And in a world of say 1,000,000, you would find that about 200,000 people are saved. Numerically speaking, the last thing you would ever expect to find is an entire city, as in the case of Sodom, or an entire world, as in the case of the Noah story, where no-one is saved (except for Lot and Noah and his family). Such a thing is numerically almost impossible on an Arminian model. The odds would be astronomical--like a coin coming up heads a million times in a row. True, I can’t prove it’s not possible. But do I really have to prove it’s not possible to show it’s not likely?
3. If God’s trying His Best to Save All, He’s Doing a Pretty Bad Job
All concede God created the Best of All Possible Worlds. The Calvinist BOAP is one in which most perish by God’s design in order to demonstrate His justice. The Universalist BOAP is one in which all suffer the purifying fires of God’s love in order to be perfected. The Arminians is one in which God wishes to save all, makes an honest attempt, and still winds up consigning the vast majority of people to hell forever. That is their Best of All Possible Worlds. In other words, the very best effort of Omnipotence to produce the Best of All Possible Worlds results in a finished product that’s scarcely distinguishable from the Worst of all Possible Worlds. Imagine if He weren’t Omnipotent! Fisk charges the Universalist with denying God’s omnipotence. Could anyone imagine a greater charge against God’s Omnipotence than to imagine that He tries to save the whole world and fails more often than He succeeds?
For a more thorough treatment of Arminianism see Chapter 12 of my book The Calvinist Universalist.