On the one hand, Arminians subscribe to conditional election. God has chosen who will be saved on the basis of foreseen faith.
On the other hand, Arminians believe it’s possible for a regenerate Christian to lose his salvation. They cite Arminian prooftexts for apostasy, like Heb 6.
But are these two Arminian doctrines mutually consistent? Even assuming we operate with conditional election rather than unconditional elect, if God has chosen who will be saved on the basis of foreseen faith, then is it possible for the elect to lose their salvation? If conditional election is correct, then is it possible for the elect to either be saved or not be saved?
The same question applies, not only to apostasy, but to conversion. Is it possible for the elect to either believe the Gospel or disbelieve the Gospel? If God has chosen who will be saved on the basis of foreseen faith, then how is a contrary outcome still in play?
How do Arminians interpret Heb 6 in light of conditional election? To whom does it apply? To the elect? But how is that a live possibility given conditional election?
Similar questions arise if you shift to Molinism. In Molinism, there’s a possible world in which Billy is saved, and another possible world in which Billy is damned. A possible world in which Billy perseveres to the end, and another possible world in which Billy commits apostasy.
But the actual world represents only one of those possibilities. If God instantiates the possible world in which Billy commits apostasy, then is Billy still at liberty to do otherwise in the real world?