It’s been said before. Yet it’s never been adequately challenged, merely just denied. So it may deserve being said again: the FV is arminian-like.
This is not to say that the FV is equal to Arminianism. Nor is it to say that the FV is a version of Arminianism. If this were all that were being said in such a charge, then facetious retort and assertive denials would suffice, as anyone can see that such a charge is ludicrous.
No, the charge is not that the FV and Arminianism are the same, share similar arguments, or follow even a similar hermeneutic. Rather they share (at least) these two characteristics:
Both posit a real possession (although differently) of the ordo salutis (generally and particularly, not comprehensively) by these fallers-away.
Both posit the loss of whatever ordo salutis possessed (however possessed).
To be sure, some FV proponents (interestingly not all) will maintain that the FV does not posit the possession of any of the ordo salutis by the fallers away. Instead, the FV offers that these fallers away possess benefits of the Covenant of Grace; benefits described using terms and formulations functionally non-distinguishable from the comparable ordo salutis benefits.
Such equivocation does not alter the arminian-like charge however. As a study of Arminianism will show, equivocation is but a glue that holds the inconsistencies of that system together. And so too with the FV. It too relies on the glue of equivocation to hold its system together – yet a third characteristic it shares with Arminianism.
Thus the charge that the FV is arminian-like, in that it shares these three characteristics, sticks like “super”glue.