In Ron Nash's book entitled, "Is Jesus The Only Savior?", under the heading, "Why I Am Not An Inclusivist" here are excerpts from Chapter Eleven, beginning on page 163:
"Inclusivism can have a strong emotional appeal for many evangelical Christians. Many could sleep better if there were less urgency or no urgency in getting the gospel to the unevangelized. Many of us have loved ones who died with their relationship to Christ uncertain or whose prospects for eternity appear bleak. Some comfort, however false it might prove to be, could be derived from various inclusivist theories noted in this book.
However, wise Christians know better than to confuse the truth with the way they would sometimes like things to be. Whatever the appeal to the heart, we must evaluate exclusivism with our minds. How inclusivism squares with Scripture is more important than how it make us *feel*. [snip]
THE INCLUSIVIST AS ROMANTIC. We sometimes refer to people as romantics when they give _priority_ to feeling and emotion. Luthern theologian Marc Mueller has described CLARK PINNOCK'S inclusivism as a "romantic project" that fails to reflect "a truly biblical understanding of the awesomeness of God's sovereignity over history, the nations and the world of men." J.I. Packer believes inclusivists are more influenced by the "AMERICAN IDEA OF FAIRNESS" than by anything they have learned from Scripture.
According to some, what we find in inclusivism is a troubling example of how good and sincere people allow their feelings to get the better of them. Once they convince themselves emotionally that a certain belief *must* be true, they conclude that it *is* true and must therefore be in the Bible. It is a matter of doing theology by imagination. Step by step, inclusivists indulge in heavy speculation. One speculation is laid on another until we have what is supposed to be an elaborate theological structure. Upon careful analysis, however, the system turns out to be a house of cards.[snip]
DO INCLUSIVISTS TEACH SALVATION BY HUMAN WORKS? Once again we confront an issue on which it appears that inclusivists want to walk down both sides of the street at the same time. On the one hand, John Sanders takes the historic evangelical position that no humans "are saved by their own moral efforts". On the other hand, he ignores inclusivist implications to the exact opposite. Saunders affirms PINNOCK'S understanding of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt. 25:31-40 as an indiction that *serving the poor is an adequate substitute for faith* and may count as one ground on which God saves the unevangelized. [snip]
In other words, Pinnock is suggesting that a person who lacks New Testament faith -BUT- produces good works of a certain kind may still be saved on that basis. PINNOCK even goes so far as to speculate about God's saving "even the atheist who, through rejecting God (as he understands God), responds positively to Him implicitly by acts of love shown to neighbor."
*****The reader should reflect on these words and the meaning they give to salvation. The reader should also meditate upon the negative effect these convictions are bound to have on the future shape of Christian thought and action.****** [snip] Now we find PINNOCK suggesting that not even faith is necessary and that perhaps certain kinds of *decent* human conduct will serve just as well."
~End of excerpts ~
Ronald H. Nash (Ph.D., Syracuse) is a professor of philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. He previously served twenty-seven years as professor of philosophy and department chairperson at Western Kentucky University. He is the author of and editor of more than twenty-five books, including Worldviews in Conflict, Faith & Reason, and The Concept of God.
Here is a quote that documents Arminius' teaching that election is based upon forseen faith and perseverence.
His arguments are biblically sound, solidly reasoned, and logically presented.
His definition of foreknowledge is proven right by understanding that in light of the persecution faced by the Christians to whom Peter was writing in 1 Peter, Peter's entire basis of encouragement to them is based upon this understanding that God had "pre determined to have a love relationship" with them and that none of the sufferings they faced could ever affect their sure standing before God in any way.
The Arminian view destroys Peter's real source of support and encouragement to these people.
I have bookmarked the source, just in case this thread gets pulled as a result of the actions of the haters of this fundamental Biblical doctrine.