From the Desk of the Editor...

wisdomofscripture:

In reply to the first paragraph, I view accepting salvation as a work, and this equates arminianism to salvation by works. “why are you saved?” “Because I accepted salvation.” “why am I not saved?” “Because you didn’t accept salvation.”

You see how this is just like saying, “because I adhered to a moral code” or anything like that.

Whilst choosing God is a work, it is not effectual for salvation, it is just a fruit of salvation. It is logically possible for Jesus to take your penalty and for you to not turn to God. But when He takes our penalty we are also born again and so we do choose God as a result. 

As regards the second paragraph, John Piper uses an analogy which I like:

God hasn’t chained you to a chair and commanded you to stand up; and punishes you for your inability. Rather, you are sitting in a chair you find most comfortable and He commands you to get up and yet you don’t and so He punishes you. (obviously I am not referring to you, when I say ‘you’ :L)

I’m not Arminian.  Arminianism has five tenets, just like Calvinism; and just like Calvinism, not all of them are sound.  Just putting that out there, theology is not a two-party system.

So let’s break this down real quick.  Sum it all up.  Your claim, near as I can tell, is summarized as: God makes salvation possible to all people.  However, since no one will accept it due to our natural depravity, God must change us and save us, so that we can then accept His offer which, at this point, makes absolutely no difference because we were already saved.  And, therefore, since we were saved by God’s action of which we had no participation, and since those He does not choose to save are damned; and since there is no distinction between those saved and those unsaved except that which God personally changed, the system is just and openly available to all.

Point out the part where I’m misrepresenting your views.

(Source: n1ghtcrwler)