“It's me, it's me, oh Lord, standing in the need of prayer”

How many of you are familiar with that classic hymn?  It's quite simple, a children's song even, but it's very profound because I think for most of us, our default mindset is “It's you, it's you, it's you, oh friend/spouse/neighbor, standing in the need of prayer!”  

How many arguments have we participated in, that look like this:

“You need to change this habit, it's wrong.” 

“Talk to the mirror! YOU need to change that habit you're using right now. THEN we can talk about me.” 

“No, you're just dodging the issue now. I'm not perfect, but right now we need to look at the character issue you are displaying right now, because that's the real problem right now.” 

(etc, etc, etc).

Now, obviously, it's most efficient to talk about one person at a time, and so someone's faults are going to be discussed first, even if it's the other person.  

But the problem is when we internally insist that the other person is the only person who needs to change without asking God for a reality check on our own attitude, or when we know that we are acting fleshly but internally insist that the other person needs to change first.

Jesus speaks about this in Matthew 7:

"And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." Matthew 7:3-5

In a situation when someone wrongs us or does things in a sub-optimal way, we can either seek God in regard to our own attitude and actions first, or we can give into the feeling that we cannot possibly be happy, content or peaceful in life until the offender changes. If we take that second option, we will proceed to apply massive amounts of pressure on the other person to change and become more godly.  But this is one situation where "You first!" is not the best option.

And what is the opposite of trying to apply God's Word to other people first? I'll tell you! The opposite is this:

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." Matthew 13:44

Okay, so this man finds the treasure, and the first thing he does with it is hide it so that no one else gets to it first.  That's right, he doesn't try to apply it to other people first, he goes and *hides it* in order to make sure that he'll be the first one to take advantage of it.

This is a beautiful analogy for the power of the gospel and God's Word in our own life. It's it the thing of ultimate value in life; it makes every part of life worthwhile; it's what gives us joy. When that idea is internalized and we recognize this treasure for what it is, then in every difficult situation we will find ourselves rushing to apply the treasure to our lives first.

And then, we will find our cup of joy overflowing (for the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...), and will share it readily with others.  :D

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" Ephesians 1:3

Hope for Our Hurting World

I've heard people say, "I don't know how so-and-so can suffer through that pain without Christ." What is meant is that the person does not have a living relationship with God through Christ, yet is bearing much pain on his or her own. This admission comes from a heart that has suffered, a heart that has found comfort from God during a stint of emotional and/or psychological pain. The believer has "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation" to rely upon during distressing times (2 Cor. 1:3 NRSV).

Sadly, often even believers neglect to rely upon the God of all comfort, feeling that God should not be bothered with their pain.

But our God encourages us to invite Him into our pain. He longs for us to look to Him for consolation "in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God" (2 Cor. 1:4 NRSV). How shall we ever help others receive God's consolation if we neglect it ourselves?

We also try too hard to deflect our pain, hoping instead for immediate gratification, or a quick-fix recovery. There are no quick-fix recoveries. Recovery takes time, patience, hard work and tenacity; and no one can do the hard work for us: either we apply ourselves to the work or we degenerate. We have also lost the art of healthy and godly grieving. Henri Nouwen explains: 

The hardships we all endure require more than words, of course, even spiritual words. Eloquent phrases cannot soothe our deep pain. But we do find something to lead and guide us through. We hear an invitation to allow our mourning to become a place of healing, and our sadness a way through pain to dancing. Who is it Jesus said would be blessed? "Those who mourn" (Matt. 5:4).¹ 

We, as believers in and followers of Christ, may not "grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thess. 4:13), but we do grieve, nonetheless. The "American way" has historically been to "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps," keeping a "stiff upper lip," for "God helps those who help themselves." The Bible contradicts this false way. We are helpless and, hence, cannot pull ourselves up. We need God to pull us up. Our upper lip should not remain stiff but pliable in asking God for help. God does not help those who help themselves, but only helps those who cannot help themselves, lest we think that He is the one who needs our help. Again, Nouwen writes:    

We learn to look fully into our losses [grieving our losses], not evade them. By greeting life's pains with something other than denial we may find something unexpected. By inviting God into our difficulties we ground life -- even its sad moments -- in joy and hope. When we stop grasping our lives we can finally be given more than we could ever grab for ourselves. And we learn the way to a deeper love for others.²

Peter commanded us to cast all our anxieties and worries and cares upon God because He cares for us (1 Pet. 5:7). "Cast your burden on the LORD," writes the Psalmist, "and he will sustain you" (Ps. 55:22). When we carry what we were never meant to carry, we become an emotional danger to ourselves, as well as to those around us. This is why one often hears a believer confess to his or her perplexity of a non-believer enduring suffering apart from Christ. Pain and suffering are difficult to bear with Him, let alone without Him. Jesus is the only hope for our hurting world. Many have walked away from the faith by neglecting to rely upon the only hope for our hurting world.
     

__________ 

¹ Henri J.M. Nouwen, Turning My Mourning into Dancing: Finding Hope in Hard Times (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2001), xv.

² Ibid. 

Written by William Birch, reposted with permission.

_____Loyalty and submission to God______ As illustrated by a ragtag band of pirates

The “Pirates of Penzance,” a Gilbert and Sullivan musical which is most widely known for  the Modern Major General song, has always been a favorite movie of mine. If you haven't watched the movie yet (the version with Kevin Kline), I highly recommend that you do so at once!

It's a heart-warming story about a band of pirates who make their living by attacking and looting other ships, but who, nonetheless, try to live by a simple set of morals that they all hold to and also respect the conscience of others. For example, near the beginning, Frederick quits their pirate band and lets the Pirate King know that he intends to come back with the police force and wipe them from the face of the map, because of their evil profession. Upon hearing this, the Pirate King replies,

“if you conscientiously feel that it is your duty to destroy us, we cannot blame you for acting on that conviction. Always act according to the dictates of your conscience, my boy, and CHANCE the CONSEQUENCES!!!”

And you know, that's probably a good level of respect that we all should have toward our opponents who are acting according to their convictions, whether we agree or disagree with them on the matter. But, anyway, the film progresses until we reach a final showdown between the police force and the pirates, and, well, the police lose in about 4 minutes, and end up being thrown into a great big heap together, surrounded by pirates.

But, just as we think that the pirates have won, the police chief gets up and gives a speech: “To gain a brief advantage you've contrived, but your proud triumph will not be long-lived!” Continuing, he says, (or sings, rather): “We charge you yield! In Queen Victoria's name!”

Then, it actually works. “We yield at once with humbled mien,” responds the Pirate King, “because, with all our faults, we love our queen.” And thus, the Pirate King, and all of his followers, leave their life of piracy behind.

At first thought, that seems wildly unrealistic. A whole band of pirates, BAM!, just like that, renouncing their life of crime? Because of an appeal to alliance?  Well, I think that's how it should work in the Christian life. We are loyal to God, our King and LORD, but at the same time we often choose patterns of behavior which (whether we know it or not) do not please Him at all.

To change us from a specific ungodly path, all it should take is one person showing us that God doesn't want us to go down that path, and appealing to our alliance to God in the matter. That's all it should take to persuade us to do a 180 in any particular aspect of our lives (though the actual continuation on that path might be fraught with difficulty).

It would be nice if we could instantly live a perfect life, with perfect knowledge of what's right and wrong in any given situation, and never sinned in thought, action, or word.  But, that is a goal that we will not achieve fully until we reach heaven.  The best we can do, while here on each living flawed lives, is this:  live in humility, being open to possibility that we are doing it wrong, seeking wisdom from God, listening to input from others, and at every point where we find that have been living in a way that God objects to, yielding to God at once with humble mien.  That's how I want to live my life, anyway.  Because, with all my faults, I love our King!


.

Your Brain's Native Language

Suppose you know a person who speaks both English and French, but French is their native and primary language. If you wanted to communicate with them, you could choose either to talk to them in English or in French – either way would get the message across to some degree. But, suppose that you want to make your message easy for them to understand, then communication in French would be considered preference in regard to this goal. Fundamentally, we understand things most easily when they are communicated in our preferred language. 

That's pretty straight-forward. But I'm going to get into something slightly deeper: Your sub-conscious mind has a native language of it's own.

Primarily, we perceive the world around us through 5 senses: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, taste, and smell. These are the primary ways that we mentally represent reality, and these representations also give meaning to the language that we use to internalize or describe our experiences. That's a lot of long words to describe something simple: There is something in reality, I see that thing, and I create a mental visual representation of that object, and maybe even attach a name to that picture.

Here's the amazing thing, though: when people think about non-physical concepts, they also use these sensory-based representational systems to conceptualize it in their head. For example, if I want agreement with someone, I could say: “Do you *see* what I mean?” or “I *hear* what you're saying” or “I just want to be *on the same page* here.”

“On the same page”? We've just taken the invisible concept of agreement and conceptualized it using three different sensory systems. Your brain (and everyone else's) does this *all* the time. What varies is which sensory representational system people prefer. The three most common are visual, auditory, and tactile(kinesthetic, spacial). One of them is your brain's native language – the language it uses to make sense of the world.

When I first learning about this concept, I was fascinated to discover that me and my husband speak different mental “native languages.” I am much more visual. Every time I come across a concept, it's “Do you see what I mean?” or “from this viewpoint, you can see that this makes sense...” or “look at it this way.” Very visual metaphors that I constantly use without consciously thinking about it. My husband, though, thinks in spacial, tactile terms. With him, it's more about “coming across,” “steam rolling,” “finding common ground,” “where the rubber meets the road,” and so on.

Of course, no one sticks to just one type of metaphor, but each person usually has one type that they primarily prefer and use. If you listen to the language that people use, (or look at what they type), then you can notice if they primarily use visual, auditory, or tactile metaphors, and then you'd know what their brain's native language is. Is this helpful information? Absolutely, if you plan to communicate with them and want your message to be easily understood. When you know what their preferred representational system is, you can use those types of phrases and metaphors when talking with them. After all, we all understand things most easily when they are communicated in our preferred language.

Visual language examples: I see what you're saying That looks good That idea isn't clear My mind just went blank Cast some light on the subject Get a new perspective/point of view/view point An insightful/enlightening/colorful example Tunnel vision In light of Get the picture Eye to eye Beyond the shadow of a doubt See to it In view of Catch a glimpse Mind's eye Mental picture Brilliant Oversight

Auditory language examples: I hear you That rings a bell Sounds good to me Everything just suddenly clicked Listen to me In harmony with Something tells me not to Harping on That resonates with me Word for word Voice an opinion Unheard of Call on Tuned out

Tactile language examples: Grasp the concept Get a handle on it Pull yourself together A solid understanding I'm up against a wall I have a feeling you're right All comes down to this Get in touch with Where the rubber meets the road Change your standpoint Insensitive Come up with Underhanded Come to grips with On the right track One step at a time Pull some strings Sharp as a tack On your toes A heated argument Under my skin Hit the nail on the head Off-the-cuff Crossing a line

This list is obviously not a complete list, but I hope that it includes enough to help you start seeing the patterns of language that can be used.  One fun thing to do is to listen to various songs, and notice which type of metaphor is used most frequently within that song.  Very fun.

Time, I will hunt you down! And I will find you!

It's easy enough to make a time budget, but then it's difficult to audit. You get to the end of the day, half the things on your to-do list are untouched, you still feel exhausted, and then you wonder:  Where did all my time go?   Did things individually take longer than I anticipated?  Or am I just getting distracted and not doing things on my list?  If you're in a very thoughtful mood, you might even wonder - Is my life being spent on the things I want my life to be spent on?

Therefore, I have created a way to keep track of all my time, using coffee cups, poker chips, and coins!

The coffee cups list the things I might be be doing, but they all start out empty.  [By the way, the above image does *not* show all of the coffee cups. Obviously there are a great many more categories.]   Poker chips and coins are time-currency, and represent various amounts of time.  Once I spend my time on something, I put that amount of time-currency into the appropriately labeled coffee cup.

Then, if I ever need to know where all my time has gone, I can just look inside all of the cups and see how much time-currency is in each one. (And then I can question whether that's the ideal placement of time, or what I wish to change)

Bonus:  I can put time-currency into two cups for the same amount of time if I was accomplishing both at once.  For example, if I am working AND enjoying myself for an hour, I can put an hour of time-currency into both the “work” container and also the “enjoyment” container.

So, uh, now I need to go put some currency into the "blog" and "enjoyment" cups...  :D



.

Infant Baptism

I can't say that I have ever truly understood the reasoning behind infant baptism within the Protestant tradition. Infant baptism in Catholicism makes sense, since that's just one of many good things that you can do to get grace and work your way toward heaven. But from the Christian standpoint that we are not saved by being born into a Christian household, that we do not “get more grace” because of baptism or any other sacrament, and that baptism is symbolic of salvation (being buried with Christ and rising again), infant baptism does not follow.

Three Symbols: Dedication, Infant Baptism, Believers-Baptism

Now, I believe in infant dedication. Often, parents will, in front of their local congregation, dedicate their child to the Lord. This seems awesome. But this is also a different symbolism than the symbolism of baptism and salvation. You see, all unbelieving children of Christians can be dedicated to God, and only the ones who eventually (by their admission anyway) come to faith in Christ and are born again will be baptized. The two symbols are complementary, not competitive.

Christians who follow the tradition of infant baptism will sometimes say that baptism is not symbolic of salvation, but symbolic of being in a covenant relationship with God (which unbelieving children are also in). Well, then, we have two baptisms – each is representative of a different thing. That leaves two possibilities: Either the two baptisms can be complimentary (one symbolizing the covenant relationship, and one symbolizing salvation/rebirth) OR Only of the ideas of what baptism represents is correct.

I reject the first hypothesis, that the two baptisms can be complimentary, because we read in the Scriptures:

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Eph 4:4-6

So then, either believers-baptism is correct, or else infant baptism is correct.

The Mystery of Reformed Infant Baptism

With the Reformed point of view, infant baptism makes even less sense. You see, in a non-Calvinist sense of Covenental Theology, it may be believed that the children of believers are loved by God (who desires their salvation), and given extra grace, which makes their salvation more likely. But in Calvinism, you are either elect or you're not. You either are given so much grace that you cannot resist salvation, or so little grace that you cannot possibly repent. Therefore, the children of believers are in the same boat, the same situation, as any other non-believer: no one knows whether they are “elect” or “non-elect” until they come to faith (elect) or die unrepentant (non-elect). No one knows if God loves them, or will give them enough grace, until one of those two things happens.

The only favor God could show to the children of believers, in this worldview, is that He could save a higher percentage of the children of believers than of the world at large. Maybe in the world at large, He saves 1 out of every 25 people, but He also saves 1 out of every 5 children of believers. But this is just speculation, not a promise or covenant. So the baptism could not possibly symbolize this
extra favor” of higher percentage salvation which is not promised in the Bible. Therefore, in reformed tradition, this infant baptism can only symbolize a “Covenental relationship” in which God promises to save all of those He unconditionally elects, regenerates, and causes to have faith. But that covenant applies to the whole world. Why not baptize the world??

Which Baptism is Correct?

Well, who am I to say? I believe that Believer's baptism, which is symbolic of repentance, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, faith, salvation, having sins washed away, and dying with Christ and being raised again(death of the “old man” and regeneration), is correct. But this belief is only justified if that's what the Bible teaches is the true symbolism of Baptism:

Symbolisms mentioned: Repentance, indwelling of the Holy Spirit

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Mt 3:11

[ONE EXCEPTION: Jesus needed no repentance, but was baptized anyway by John]

Symbolisms mentioned: Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

“I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Mk 1:8

Symbolisms mentioned: Faith, Salvation

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mk 16:16

Symbolisms mentioned: Faith, Salvation

“Then those who gladly received his word were baptized...” Acts 2:41

Symbolisms mentioned: Dying with Christ and being raised again(death of the “old man” and regeneration)

“Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Rom 6:2-4

Symbolism mentioned: Sins being Washed Away

“And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16

So, with the exception of Christ's Baptism, all of the symbolism associated with Baptism is associated with realities accompanying salvation: repentance, faith, sins washed away, salvation, being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and dying to sin/being raised to newness of life. Not one of these is associated with the state of non-belief. Therefore, I would conclude that if there is truly only “one baptism” in Christianity, then believer's baptism must be that one, because it affirms the symbolism mentioned above in those eight verses quoted from the Scriptures.

What about households? These are also verses that refer to a whole household being Baptized:

“And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” Acts 16:33

Well, the verse does not say whether everyone in his family believed or not. Based on the symbolism listed previously, I would say that baptism is reserved for believers, and would conclude that all of his family believed. Another verse about a (separate) entire household is consistent with my conclusion, because it spells out that the entire household believed:

“Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” Acts 18:8

Therefore, it seems clear that Biblical Baptism is symbolic of repentance, faith, sins washed away, salvation, being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and dying to sin/being raised to newness of life, not of some other coventantal relationship that does not include these elements.  Given that understanding, only those who profess repentance and faith should be allowed to be baptized, just like only professing believers should be allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper/Breaking of Bread.

Unlimited Atonement

The Calvinist says that Jesus died only for some, the Arminian says that Jesus died for all. It's a very short summary of both positions, and such a short summary often leads to misunderstandings about the full meaning. Spelled out a little more clearly, the Arminian position can be summed up this way:

Every drop of Jesus' blood fully fulfilled both of Christ's atonement goals: to provide salvation for all, and to procure salvation for the elect.

This is very important, because it dispels many of myths believed about the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement. The statement above refers to a combination of three specific beliefs:

(1) Every drop of Jesus' blood fully fulfilled both of Christ's atonement goals:
(2) to provide salvation for all, and
(3) to procure salvation for the elect.

Whose sin was covered by Christ? Only the elect. Those to whom the blood of Christ is applied are those who are saved. Only the elect receive the salvific benefits of the atonement. In this manner, it can be said that Arminians also limit the extent of the atonement:

A - Christ limits the provision of salvation to only provide for those in the human race,

B - and He limits the application of salvation to only cover those who are the elect, those who believe.

In that sense, then, to sum up the doctrine as “unlimited atonement” is also a language shortcut that leads to misunderstandings.

Permit me to offer an analogy to make the Arminian concept of the atonement clear:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:14

The serpent, being lifted up, provided a way of healing for all who were bitten. It was sufficient for the healing of all of them. However, not all of them received the benefit of that offer. Only those who looked upon the serpent were healed. The serpent was sufficient for the healing of all, but only efficacious for the healing of those who looking upon it. The serpent was lifted up for all those who were suffering from snake bites, but only those who looked on it were granted the healing offered by the Lord.

To summarize, this is the difference between the Calvinist and Arminian understanding of the intent and scope of the atonement:

Calvinist: The atonement procures salvation only for the elect.

Arminian: The atonement procures salvation only for the elect, and also provides salvation for everyone.

__________________________________________________

So now that I've laid out a clear statement of the Arminian position, let's look at some of the misunderstandings that I have heard about this view:

The Claim: #1 Arminians limit the power of the atonement

Now, obviously, a mere moral cannot limit God's power. What the Calvinist means by this statement is that the Arminian view paints the atonement as less powerful than it actually is.

I will give two reasons why this idea is false. The first reason is that the Arminian claims not that the atonement did less, but that the atonement did more. As you may recall, the Arminian believes that Jesus' death accomplished both (A) the provision of salvation to all and (B) the application of salvation to the elect (believers). The Calvinist only belives that Christ's death accomplished (A) and not (B).

The second reason is that only God can limit Himself; there are no external limitations. Any limitations on salvation are placed by God Himself. The Arminian claims that the atonement accomplished the intent of the atonement. Christ wanted to provide salvation for all, and He achieved that. Christ wanted to procure salvation for the elect, and He accomplished that. Where is the limit of power? God demonstrated the power to achieve all of His objectives here.

The Claim: #2 In Arminianism, in fact, the atonement is potential, but made actual when one believes.

If you remember point (1) from the beginning of this blog, you will recall that the Arminian belief is that “Every drop of Jesus' blood fully fulfilled both of Christ's atonement goals.” There is nothing potential about “fully fulfilled.” When Christ died on the cross, His blood actually covered the sins of past, present, and future believers. His covering of our (us Christians) sins was actual before we believed.

Looking at point (2) next: Christ intended to provide salvation for all, and He DID actually provide salvation for all. Intent accomplished.

Look at (3) now: He intended to save the elect (those who believe) and He DID actually save the elect. Intent accomplished.

You might begin to see a pattern. The pattern is that every intent of Christ was accomplished. This is why Jesus cried out “It is finished!” Which means, it was accomplished.

There is nothing potential here. Both intents were ACTUALLY (and not potentially) fulfilled.

The Claim: #3 In Arminanism, the blood of Christ doesn't actually cover the sins of anyone.

This is an obviously false claim. All Arminians believe that they are going to heaven, they believe on Christ as Savior, and they believe that His blood actually covers their sin; that's how they believe they will avoid hell. See point (3), “to procure salvation for the elect.” The shed blood of Christ fully fulfilled this intention, and when Jesus died, His blood covered the sins of the elect.

So, given that we claim that Christ's blood actually covered the sins of the elect, it would be impossible for us to also believe that Christ's blood didn't actually cover the sin of anyone. This is the point of agreement between the Arminian and the Calvinist: That when Christ died, His atonement covered the sins of, and procured salvation for, the elect (believers).

The Claim: #4 If Jesus died for all, and it's not just potential, then you are left with universalism.

To say that “Jesus died for all,” in this case is confusing, because it does not specific whether the writer is speaking of Christ's providing salvation or procuring salvation. We will look at the statement using both possible meanings:

“If Jesus died to provide (but not procure) salvation for all, and it's not just potential, then you are left with universalism.”

You can see why this is false. If Jesus died to provide salvation for all, and it's not potential, then it means that all were actually provided for, not that all were saved. Salvation, in this case, was not procured for all.

“If Jesus died to procure salvation for all, and it's not just potential, then you are left with universalism.”

That would be true. But we don't believe that Jesus died to procure salvation for all. He wanted to procure salvation only for the elect. His atonement only covers the sins of the elect. Therefore, it's not universalism.

The Claim: #5 In Arminanism, some of Jesus' blood was wasted

A calvinist told me that according to my beliefs, " some blood is wasted because the blood that is provided for all, does not actually save all."

However, it's not like some blood was put toward providing salvation for all, and a different portion of blood was put toward procuring salvation for the elect. Each drop of blood (see point 1) was accomplishing both purposes. Every drop of blood actually covers the sin of the elect. How is that a waste? It's not. Every drop of blood, in addition to covering the sins of the elect, gives the provision of salvation to everyone in the world. Does accomplishing more make it a waste somehow? Certainly not.

Again, I would remind the reader, the Arminians believe that the atonement accomplished the same thing that the Calvinist believes: Namely, it accomplishes the salvation of the elect.

This is not a waste. The Arminian also believes that, in addition to that intent, the atonement provided salvation for all men:

“This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.” (John 1:7)

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves...” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

“For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)

“But we see Jesus, who... by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)