Piper teaches that some Calvinists might not be Born Again.

You were making a statement about what WE believe, not what you believe, thus it is not begging the question for me to state our position.

The question as to why some come and some don't is a perfect example of the fallacy called "begging the question." Why? Because it presumes a deterministic answer is needed, and denies the very freedom our position claims. Free agency is mysterious and beyond full comprehension and whether you admit that or not you have the same mystery. That can be demonstrated when we shift the discussion to talk about God's choices. Why did He choose you and not someone else? Mystery? Could he have chosen someone else? If not, why not? If so, why didn't He? All mystery. We cannot possibly know all the factors that go into the decision of a free moral agent and to presume that all decisions must be caused by some determinative factor is just a game of question begging.

 

Question Begging.

I'm just wondering why your thoughts were pure enough to humble yourself to become a Calvinist, while Winman didn't have pure enough thoughts to humble himself?

 

Yes, and that answer you gave in the other post is the exact answer we can give you to this particular question.

 

Notice that you said, "that those who chose rightly can claim some merit," but when I asked you about why you were a Calvinist you claim that it is from God and that you can't claim merit. However, in the other thread you admitted that God didn't override men's freewill in the regard of what doctrinal stance they have. Which is it because you keep contradicting yourself. Or at least that is what it appears to me.

You think you are not begging the question by saying that you are not presuming "determinism" but then you have presumed that there MUST be some "merit" that determined that choice. You don't even see the contradiction in that statement.

If their is some MERIT in a person that caused/determined his choice to accept the gospel that is the very defination of determinism and the heart of Calvinistic thought. Faith (effectually brought about by regeneration) is the MERIT by which a person chooses to follow Christ in your system. You think there MUST be some merit because you presume there must be something that determines a choice. We believe the PERSON (not some merit, characteristic, condition or whatever) determines a choice. The actor causes the act. The chooser makes the choice. The determiner makes the determination. The complexity of that free choice is beyond full comprehension because the all the influential factors, personality traits and other components that effect that choice are unknowable to us. So, just as a Calvinist appeals to mystery with regard to why God might choose one person to save over another, so too the non-Calvinists appeals to mystery as to why a free moral agent might choose one path over another.

Actually, those who hold to LFW don't believe that every choice is undetermined. We just believe that for a choice to be FREE and for someone to be morally accountable for a choice that they must have been able to do otherwise. We do acknowledge and accept the biblical teaching regarding God's special acts of intervention to bring about a certain predetermined aspect of His plan.

We have a clear distinction between the instinctive choices of animals and the free choices of morally accountable people. I think the Calvinistic (compatibilistic) explanations of human freedom blur this distinction.

Well, even more deterministic or compatiblistic philosophical scholars acknowledge that if one can establish the possibility of LFW anywhere (even in God) that it would open the possibility of its duplication considering the fact that God is omnipotent. So, my goal in this argument is not to equate our will with that of God. It is simply to establish the possibility of LFW within God so as to show that aspect of God can be duplicated within man to some degree...though still mysterious indeed.

 

I asked you, "Do you believe that God would rather see men remain Arminians than to override their free will?"

You answered:
Apparently, yes, otherwise all would eventually abandon Arminianism (assuming such is incorrect).

That mean's you believe that God doesn't override a believer's freewill with regard to whether they are Calvinistic or not. Right?

So, which is it?

1. Did God give you something to make you accept the "truth" of Calvinism (thus determining you to be a Calvinist) that he didn't grant me (thus determining me to be an Arminian.

OR

2. Did God give us both, as believers, all we need to know and accept the "truth" of Calvinism? If so, why did you accept it while I didn't? Are you smarter? What merit do you claim that you weren't given?

Neither do I. No more so than you believe God's choice to save you and not someone else is a "random occurrence without explanation." You simply refer to God's choices as being "secret" or "mysterious" in the same manner that I refer to the complexity of all morally free choices.

You seem to be confusing to different issues. (preexistent "merit" and the "reward" for doing what is right)

Of course the REWARD goes to the chooser. Thus the whole concept of reward and punishment. "Abraham believed and it was credited to HIM as righteousness." There is a difference in rewarding a person for making the correct choice...i.e. "Your faith has made you well"... and the "merit" that determines one to make this choice rather than that one....i.e. "your great intellect determined your choice to the right thing."

I didn't say personality traits and other factors determined the choice, I said they were INFLUENCES on the agent. The agent determines the choice.

 

Why are you allowed to say that with regard to the "doctrines of Grace," but you won't allow us to say it with regard to the doctrines of salvation?

Don't you see the double standard?

Let me ask you this. Assuming Calvinism is correct, could John Wesley have been a Calvinist? Could he have believed otherwise? If he could then why didn't he? Did God not grant him something that he granted the Calvinistic theologians?

Well, I'd argue that he has revealed the reason he chooses to save some over others.

"Your faith has made you well."
"Because you have believed...."
"Repent and believe and you will be saved."
"Whosoever believes in him shall be saved."
"Abraham believe and it was credited to him as righteousness."
"Many are called by few are chosen."

Have you read this analogy of the banquet feast? Why does the bridegroom choose those who show up at the banquet? Because they are dressed correctly (the righteousness of Christ). The choice is made based upon how the person has clothed himself, not some secret unknown mystery of God.

Again, don't confuse the reward (the consequences of a choice) with the "merit" or "characteristic" that determined the choice.

We both agree that God rewards those who love and follow him, right? That in some sense is "credit." That is NOT what we are discussing. We are talking about the determination of the choice.

.
Its not a "twist" it is a clarification so that we are addressing the same subject. Don't you acknowledge the difference between the thing that caused you to have faith and be saved from the reward of that faith and salvation? It's a clear distinction.

And if Calvinism is true, who in there right mind would choose non-Calvinism? So, you must have a better mind than those who did. (again, double standard)

The reason it feels like that is because the question you are asking is the fallacy of "begging the question." That by its very definition is a cyclical fallacy which leads to confusion and repeated arguments. That is why I'm attempting to explain it to you. Let me let a scholar explain it and maybe you will understand him better: