The New Haven views are essentially Arminian. See Fitch, on Predestination and Election, in Christian Spectator, 3:622—“God’s foreknowledge of what would be the results of his present works of grace _preceded_ in the order of nature the purpose to pursue those works, and presented the _grounds_ of that purpose. Whom he foreknew—as the people who would be guided to his kingdom by his present works of grace, in which result lay the whole objective motive for undertaking those works—he did also, by resolving on those works, predestinate.” Here God is very erroneously said to _foreknow_ what is as yet included in a merely _possible_ plan. As we have seen in our discussion of Decrees, there can be no foreknowledge, unless there is something fixed, in the future, to be foreknown; and this fixity can be due only to God’s predetermination. So, in the present case, election must precede prescience. The New Haven views are also given in N. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology, 373‐444; for criticism upon them, see Tyler, Letters on New Haven Theology, 172‐180. If God desired the salvation of Judas as much as of Peter, how was Peter elected in distinction from Judas? To the question, “_Who made thee to differ?_” the answer must be, “Not God, but my own will.” See Finney, in Bib. Sac., 1877:711—“God must have foreknown whom he _could_ wisely save, prior in the order of nature to his determining to save them. But his knowing who _would_ be saved, must have been, in the order of nature, subsequent to his election or determination to save them, and dependent upon that determination.” Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 70—“The doctrine of election is the consistent formulation, _sub specie eternitatis_, of prevenient grace.... 86—With the doctrine of prevenient grace, the evangelical doctrine stands or falls.” (_b_) This purpose cannot be conditioned upon any merit or faith of those who are chosen, since there is no such merit,—faith itself being God’s gift and foreordained by him. Since man’s faith is foreseen only as the result of God’s work of grace, election proceeds rather upon foreseen unbelief. Faith, as the effect of election, cannot at the same time be the cause of election. There is an analogy between prayer and its answer, on the one hand, and faith and salvation on the other. God has decreed answer in connection with prayer, and salvation in connection with faith. But he does not change his mind when men pray, or when they believe. As he fulfils his purpose by inspiring true prayer, so he fulfils his purpose by giving faith. Augustine: “He chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe: lest we should say that we first chose him.” (_John 15:16_—“_Ye did not choose me, but I chose you_”; _Rom. 9:21_—“_from the same lump_”; _16_—“_not of him that willeth_”.)