However, there is a flaw in the logic of 4-Point Calvinism. In order to demonstrate, consider John 3:16 and John 6:37.
On the contrary. There is a glaring inconsistency. According to the 4-point Calvinist, God loved the world so much (as per John 3:16), that He gave it His one and only Son, and yet God simultaneously won’t give the world to His Son so that it might be saved (as per the Calvinist doctrine of Preterition at John 6:37). How is that possible? In other words, what God gives with the right hand (in an Unlimited Atonement), He takes away with the left hand in a Limited Election).
Now it should be pointed out that at John 6:37 and 6:44, Arminians agree that not all are given and drawn. But before the 4-Point Calvinist concludes that Arminians are in the same boat, in terms of the contradiction, let me clarify that there are two drawings, one by the Father at John 6:44, and one by the Son at John 12:32, in which the former is limited and the latter unlimited. At John 6:44, God was more than willing to give the whole nation of Israel to His Son (Isaiah 65:2; Matthew 23:37), but they were unwilling. (John 5:40) God had given and drawn the faithful remnant of Israel to His Son, partially through John the Baptist, and those that the Father did not give, wasn’t because He didn’t want to give them (i.e. the Calvinist doctrine of Preterition, otherwise known as Pass-By Calvinism), but because they had rejected Him. Hence, the reason why they were not of the Son’s sheep (John 10:26), was because they were not of the Father’s sheep either. They had rejected the Father, and hence naturally rejected the Son whom He had sent. In contrast, at John 12:32, Jesus does point to the time in which He would draw “all men” to Himself (i.e. post Calvary, John 12:32) The difference, then, between the 4-Point Calvinist and the Arminian, in terms of why all men were not given to the Son at John 6:37, is that while the former cites withheld Irresistible Grace (i.e. Preterition), the latter cites a special drawing of the Father’s flock to His Son (i.e. “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me,” as per John 6:45), contrasted by the post-Calvary, universal drawing by the Son, as per John 12:32. Thus, while the 4-Point Calvinist affirms an “Unlimited Atonement” BUT “Limited effectual drawing” (i.e. Irresistible Grace), the Arminian affirms an “Unlimited Atonement” AND “Unlimited effectual drawing” (effectual in the sense that Jesus enables those whom He draws, that is, “all men,” with the power of contrary choice, intervening in their unregenerate state in order that they may receive Him, viz. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” as per Revelation 3:20), and it is in this sense that the Arminian maintains consistency with John 3:16, in terms that the world really does have the Son as Savior, whereas with 4-Point Calvinism, the alleged non-elect are not being given “to” the One whom the Father had already given them. So Ron Rhodes is correct that 4-Pointers are not “Arminian in their theology.”
Perhaps it is for the sake of contradictions like this, that some Calvinists have become 5-Pointers, who then argue thusly:
5-Point Calvinist, John Piper, comments: “In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.” (What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism, emphasis mine)
What if God is able to compensate for their “terrible plight of depravity,” and without an irresistible grace? Would it still be a “powerless opportunity”? That’s why the Calvinist first must assume Calvinism, in order to conclude Calvinism, which is really just Circular Logic.
The key to the Calvinist argument is the total inability of God, yes God, to reach the unregenerate. The Calvinist, however, will insist that it’s not a matter of God being totally unable to reach the unregenerate, but the unregenerate being totally unable to reach God. But, what if God was capable of giving the unregenerate an opportunity to receive Him? The Calvinist will not wish to address that question at all, but will instead insist that man is too far gone, too far depraved, and yet the Calvinist doesn’t realize that his argument is a double-edged sword!, since by insisting that unregenerate man is too far gone, he is simultaneously saying that he is too far gone for even God to be able to reach (and hence the Calvinist argument that God must preemptively make the unregenerate, regenerate viz. Irresistible Grace). So the Calvinist argument is built upon a presupposition of the total inability of God, without realizing it.
What if God was able to take an unregenerate person, and bring them to the point where they were able to receive Him? If God could give them the power of contrary choice, that is, the ability to decide one way or the other, then if they did choose to receive Christ, through His enablement (otherwise known as Prevenient Grace), then their opportunity would be anything but powerless. So that’s why you have to first assume Calvinism in order to arrive at Piper’s conclusion.