the main problem I see with calvinist view is that an all knowing eternal being who sits outside of time and watches it all at once is also unable to create or alter what he is viewing as there was never any moment when he did not see it just as it is.... so he could not have designed it, purposed it or alter it in any way.... making this god the observer and a useless being.
calvin and armenias
Russell's trick is postulating a secondary class of non-Christians (or not-yet-Christians) with a potential for eventual salvation to avoid the dilemma of classical Christianity, "either elect or doomed". This is a simplistic answer to a very serious question, which worried all theologians bent on universalism, from Origen's apokatastasis to Hans Küng "anonymous Christians" for instance. In Russell's case it is solved in a sort of prophetic quasi-universalism.
(As I wrote earlier, Rutherford's doctrine of the "two hopes" for present Christians is a totally perverted version of Russell's belief.)
It still seems to me, but I may be wrong, that as far as Christians (the church, the little flock, the anointed) are concerned Russell leans towards Arminianism though -- for instance the elect can resist grace and lose their salvation. Could anyone familiar with Russell's writings confirm or refute?
for instance the elect can resist grace and lose their salvation
I concur with your viewpont. These two main tenets of Arminianism ultimately put man's freewill above God's sovereignty.
While Russell et al are not outright Arminian, their position is far closer allied to this than to that of Calvinism.