A Biblicist Alternative To Calvin-Arminian

[IveyLeaguer]

In the 'What Is A Biblicist' thread just completed, there were basically 3 definitions presented. One of them was "a Biblicist is someone who is neither Calvinist nor Arminian." That's what this post is about. That's not what it means to me, but some, particularly our Calvinist members, objected to that definition (or using the term in any way, for that matter). Others object to its use in any way because it implies a superior or arrogant possession of the scriptures, something that had never occured to me before. But it seems the Calvinist position doesn't allow for any intermediary position between the extremes of Arminianism and Calvinism. If you're not Calvinistic, you're Arminian and there is no other possibility.

As one who has never embraced Arminianism, the following two posts are an effort to show there is another Biblical position other than C or A. It was commented more than once that the 'Biblicists' had not defined what they believe. I speak for noone else, but here is what I believe about C and A. Structured on the TULIP Five Points of Calvinism, the first post covers points 1 and 2, while the second deals with points 3, 4, and 5. It is prayerfully hoped that this effort will shed light and not contention or division, though I suspect it will be very controversial.

This is not a case for the term 'Biblicist', nor an effort to define it. It is, instead, intended to make the case that there exists Biblical truth outside of C and A. The structure of the post is a Comparison Chart of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, that was linked in the other thread, from a Calvinist website, and is written by Calvinists and credited below.*** Each point is stated individually, word for word, then a response is given.

In writing this, there was no research done, and no scripture was referred to. I thought this was very important to get an accurate picture of where a supposed 'Biblicist' stood, since I had claimed to be one, so there was no preparation whatsoever. As such, I am sure there are many flaws, and I would be grateful for you to point them out. But this is not designed to make a theological case or persuade anyone to any point or point of view. And this is certainly not intended to be another Calvin vs. Arminian debate. Some give and take on C and A will be unavoidable and I hope profitable, but I hope we can keep most of the discussion to the evidence of another position that exists somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Lastly, I am most interested in your opinion, what you agree with and what you don't.

Thanks in advance and God Bless.

IveyLeaguer


*** The following material was taken from The Five Points of CALVINISM - Defined, Defended, Documented. David N. Steele and Curtis Thomas, are Baptist ministers in Little Rock, Arkansas. Their contrast of the Five Points of Calvinism with the Five Points of Arminianism is the clearest and most concise form found for the edification of the average student. It is also included as an Appendix in, Romans: An Interpretive Outline by the same authors. Each of these books is published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

A BIBLICIST RESPONSE TO THE FIVE POINTS

POINT ONE (James Arminius)
Free-Will or Human Ability

a. Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. DISAGREE.

b. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. AGREE. However, this enabling is not a human ability, and is only available to the sinner subsequent to being drawn by the Father in the applicable time/space continuum, with the assistance and conviction of the Holy Spirit. Yet God reserves the right to call a sinner any way He pleases, as demonstrated by the Apostle Paul, for example.

c. Each sinner posses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. AGREE. But God is not bound by man-made doctrine and reserves the right to withhold His mercy - "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

d. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. DISAGREE.

e. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. DISAGREE. The sinner is spiritually dead and possesses no spiritual power of his own. When engaging the sinner, the Holy Spirit makes that power available to him as an element of His grace.

f. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe ... AGREE. The cooperation of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to provide any measure of faith, repentance, or whatever may be necessary for the sinner to believe that God is who He is. God the Holy Spirit is adequate, capable, sufficient, and in all ways competent to assist His creature.

g. ... for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; it is man's contribution to salvation. DISAGREE. Faith precedes the new birth but it is God's gift to man. Man is acting with the necessary faith that God has temporarily gifted him with but that is not his contribution. Man's contribution to salvation is his free-will decision not to reject God.

POINT ONE (John Calvin)
Total Inability or Total Depravity

a. Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. AGREE.

b. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. AGREE.

c. His will is not free ... DISAGREE.

d. .. it is in bondage to his evil nature .. AGREE.

e. .. therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. AGREE. Because he is spiritually dead, the assistance of the Holy Spirit is required to choose or reject God. He can seek, but without God's participation, he will not find.

f. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. DISAGREE. God the Holy Spirit is adequate, capable, sufficient, and in all ways competent to assist His creature, and the degree of Light He chooses to impart into the total darkness of man's spirit is adequate to effect the desired free-will response.

g. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation - it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God. AGREE.


POINT TWO (James Arminius)
Conditional Election

a. God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. AGREE. Nevertheless, God reserves the right to call an individual in any way He chooses, as demonstrated in the case of Moses and the Apostle Paul, for example.

b. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. DISAGREE. Of himself, man cannot believe the gospel, that requires the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Though all those selected believe God is who He is, and are predestined to believe the gospel, God chose those whom He foresaw would not reject HIM.

c. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. DISAGREE. Man cannot effect salvation. God is sovereign and salvation is from above, not below. Election was determined by God, according to His foreknowledge of whether man would choose or reject Him, when enabled by the Holy Spirit.

d. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. DISAGREE. God foresaw who would accept Him or reject Him when given the ability, whether temporarily or intermittently, to respond to Him through the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

e. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. DISAGREE.

f. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. DISAGREE. God chose those who would, of their own free-will, choose Him when enabled and assisted by the Holy Spirit. Thus enabled, all those who freely choose Him, choose Christ.

g. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation. DISAGREE. God is the ultimate cause of salvation. The sinner cooperates with the Holy Spirit and avails himself of the opportunity God has graciously given him.

POINT TWO(John Calvin)
Unconditional Election

a. God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. AGREE. Salvation is from above, not below. God's will to choose the elect to Himself was sovereign, as was His will to elect all who would freely choose to love Him, in response to His gracious call and through His graceful assistance.

b. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response of obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. AGREE, but disagree slightly with the premise. The Holy Spirit's presentation of Himself to the sinner is not a quid pro quo, to which the sinner must respond with faith, obedience, etc., that he is not in possession of anyway. In harmony with the Father's drawing, the Holy Spirit woos, convicts, and assists the sinner as necessary. However, the choice not to reject God, when enabled by the Holy Spirit, was forseen. God forsees everything, including all free-will choices of His creatures, and it is impossible for Him to learn anything. It is also noteworthy that it pleased God to withhold from mankind, and reserve for Himself, the entirety of what He knows about His election process.

c. .. God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. AGREE. As an element of His assistance, God the Holy Spirit provides the sinner with anything necessary to respond to the Father's call. However, faith and repentance as we generally know them are subsequent to regeneration.

d. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. AGREE. Faith and repentance could not exist had God not chosen the elect. Notwithstanding any measure required and provided by the Holy Spirit prior to regeneration, faith and repentance are gifts of God at or subsequent to regeneration.

e. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. AGREE. Man is spiritually dead, his soul is fallen, and is therefore incapable of virtue.

f. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. AGREE.

g. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation. AGREE. God is the ultimate cause, but the sinner has a responsibilty, as God is not willing for any man to perish.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

A Biblicist Response to the Five Points

POINT THREE (James Arminius)
Universal Redemption or General Atonement

a. Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. DISAGREE. The sacrifice of Christ secured the salvation of the elect, even as it covered the sin of the whole world.

b. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. DISAGREE. The blood of Christ was sufficient to atone for the whole world, but Christ died for His elect.

c. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. DISAGREE. The blood of Jesus was more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the world, and to put away the sins of the elect.

d. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it. DISAGREE. Such a restriction places a limit on God and rules out His choice of anyone who has no opportunity to bear the responsibility of rejecting God. Salvation is from above. God will extend His grace and have mercy on whomever He will. And He reserves the right to select any man in any way He pleases, as in the case of the Apostle Paul, and is not restricted to methods of man-made doctrine.

POINT THREE (John Calvin)
Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement

a. Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. AGREE. The Lord's atonement was sufficient for all, but God did not die for those who would willfully reject Him.

b. His death was substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. AGREE. God's atoning blood was sufficient penalty for the sin of the entire world, but He died for the elect.

c. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. AGREE.

d. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation. DISAGREE. Faith is not a mystical force that God plasters onto the sinner's spirit, guaranteeing his salvation. God gracefully gives the sinner the wherewithal to accept His grace or reject Him. Should the sinner reject that grace, he is not regenerated. Once regenerate, however, and sealed by the Holy Spirit, God's gift of faith is evident, as it is impossible for a man, whose spirit has been quickened and made alive by the sovereign grace and power of Almighty God, to believe that God is not who He is.

POINT FOUR (James Arminius)
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted

a. The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation .. DISAGREE. The Spirit calls inwardly whom He will, as the Father draws to Him whom He will, and has mercy on whom He will. His drawing is not necssarily universal. Further, God has been known to reveal Himself without warning, saying "Here, I AM". Again, this is too restrictive of God.

b. He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. DISAGREE. God could provide a Damscus road experience for every creature who chooses to reject Him. Instead, in His sovereign omniscience and foreknowledge, He applies Himself to the extent required to effect responsiblity in each particular sinner. Nevertheless, He reserves for Himself the right to be merciful to whom He will be merciful and, in His sovereignty, withhold His mercy from whomever He will, unbound by any doctrine of man. "For Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated."

c. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. Agree, but there have been exceptions, such as the Apostle Paul. Again, it is dangerous to restrict God.

d. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) proceeds and makes possible the new birth. DISAGREE. God can regenerate whom He will, whenever He wills. He is not bound by any doctrine of man. Further, spiritually dead men cannot have faith.

e. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. DISAGREE. It can, it has that potential, and sometimes does, otherwise there would not be no free act. But often, in possession of that potential, it does not. The wooing and conviction of the Holy Spirit is a powerful thing, not to be underestimated.

f. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. DISAGREE. The Holy Spirit can draw, woo, convict, and save anyone.

g. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. DISAGREE. God can give life to whom He wills, anytime He wills. He is not restricted by any doctrine of man.

h. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man. DISAGREE. God's grace is invincible as it is a part of His character, an attribute that belongs to Him. He is omnipotent and there has never been, nor ever will be, a power able to strip him of His grace. But since God sovereignly decreed an election process designed to test and determine those who would choose to love Him, even if given another choice, He was pleased to extend His grace, knowing it would be rejected by some.

POINT FOUR (John Calvin)
The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace

a. In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. Agree, but one example of an exception is the Apostle Paul. There are also those, outside of the elect, who resist the wooing and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

b. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. DISAGREE. Obviously, any call made to the elect, predestined by the foreknowledge of God, will not be rejected. But there are those who are wooed and convicted by God, who nevertheless reject Him.

c. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. DISAGREE. There is a special call which is irresistible, as in Paul the Apostle and Moses, and undoubtedly, others in human history. Also, there can be little doubt as to the choice of Moses and Paul, for example, had they been ordinary men, and called in an ordinary way. But excluding those whom God sovereignly chooses to deal with as He will, the Spirit woos, convicts, nudges, and presents Himself to many who, in the end, reject Him and the Savior He is appointed to reveal, Christ the Lord.

d. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. AGREE. God is not bound by any doctrine of man.

e. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. DISAGREE. The Holy Spirit provides for and enables all of that. But He does not create a robotic cause in the sinner, any more than He created a robotic, programmed, cause in sinless Adam, thereby causing him to sin.

f. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended. DISAGREE. God's grace is invincible as it is a part of His character, an attribute that belongs to Him. He is omnipotent and there has never been, nor ever will be, a power able to strip him of His grace. But God sovereignly decreed an election process designed to determine who would choose to love Him, even if given another choice, so that the love He received from His elect would have depth and meaning, distinct in His Kingdom, an elect born into evil and tested by it. He was pleased to extend His grace to all those who, born hopeless, would with His assistance choose Him over every natural, inbred instinct, even though He knew His grace would be rejected by many. For God so loved the world that He gave to it, freely, His ultimate expression of Grace.

POINT FIVE (James Arminius)
Falling from Grace

a. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. DISAGREE. Once the spirit of man has been regenerated and sealed by God, his Creator, it cannot be undone. There is no such thing as unregeneration.

Note: All Arminians have not been agreed on this point - some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ - that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

POINT FIVE (John Calvin)
Perseverance of the Saints

a. All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. AGREE.

b. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end. AGREE.

 

[lilrabbi]

There are so many shades to this debate. To acknowledge only C and A or even just 3 is painting with a very broad brush. I'm thoroughly Calvinistic, and I can point out a system or view that is not Calvinism. Likewise, I can show you Arminianism and what isn't Arminianism. But there are 20 or more views that are neither Calvininism nor Arminianism. Arminianism isn't the furthest off the mark either. I've been discussing things with a seminary professor who is probably a 4.999999 point calvinist. But there is one point which he holds a certain way which I can't quite agree with. He is far more calvinistic than any arminian - but he is certainly not a calvinist.

 

[lilrabbi]

"c. His will is not free ... DISAGREE.

d. .. it is in bondage to his evil nature .. AGREE."

You'll have to explain how that one works. How can something be free and in bondage all at the same time?

I know where you're coming from. You have a desire to protect man's freedom and autonomy or else when a man chooses to love God because he's "forced" into it, it isn't really love. This is a non-sequitor. RC Sproul and others have clearly explained this one. Check out, "Chosen but Free" and "Willing to Believe" by RC if you want.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

labels are so hard to put on people....

Calvinist means something different to one person than it does another....Arminianism means something to one person and something else to another.

Biblicist sounds great on the surface, but the same problem arises. What does it mean?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by lilrabbi:
"c. His will is not free ... DISAGREE.

d. .. it is in bondage to his evil nature .. AGREE."

You'll have to explain how that one works. How can something be free and in bondage all at the same time?

I know where you're coming from. You have a desire to protect man's freedom and autonomy or else when a man chooses to love God because he's "forced" into it, it isn't really love. This is a non-sequitor. RC Sproul and others have clearly explained this one. Check out, "Chosen but Free" and "Willing to Believe" by RC if you want.

Good point. I thought "Chosen but Free" was written by Geisler.

To further your point, I believe man's will is in bondage to his sin nature and man will choose to stay that way until God grants spiritual sight/life. In that very important respect, God's calling frees a person (rather than "forcing them") to fulfill a longing each of us have deeply ingrained in our souls- to have a relationship with God.

God chooses who to free just like he chose who would become the patriarch "Israel". Esau followed his free will as do those who choose to continue in the bondage of sin. They are without excuse.

I generally agree with the 5-points as conclusions though I have seen explanations or supports from calvinists that I would not agree with.

I think it was Pastor Larry who said that calvinism allows the tensions in scripture between will and God's sovereignty to exist without denying either truth. I agree. Hypercalvinism denies man's will altogether. Non-calvinists almost always detract from the sovereignty of God.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:

Biblicist sounds great on the surface, but the same problem arises. What does it mean?

Like Spurgeon... I believe a calvinist is a biblicist.

 

[Biblicist]

Where we get into trouble is we don't ask people "What do you mean by that?".

You can speak to a Jehovah's Witness nowadays and they have our lingo down almost cold. They can tell you about the bible being "the only rule of faith and practice", "salvation through Christ alone", being "born again", "justification", etc. If you don't take the time to ask them what they mean by those terms you will get no where with them. They do not mean the same thing by them that we mean.

The same is true for any other theological discussion. I was criticized previously for explaning how I was using the term "election". Election is a choice. I helped to elect George Bush. I believe God elects all the time, just not in the way in which a Calvinist believes it.

My position is that if you are an ANY POINTER, you are a Calvinist. Anything other than a 5 point Calvinist position is totally and completely inconsistant with the teaching. You can hold to just one point, but if you believe even that one the way Beza and others describe it, and don't hold to the rest, you are simply inconsistant. Most people that are "Calvinist" are "Calvinist" because they don't want to be called an Arminian. They really don't know what they are saying. (I'm sure that's not true of anyone here.)

My position is that none of the five points of Calvinism are true. All have to be reinterpreted to reflect the truth of the bible.

Of course, I'm incoherent so that shouldn't bother anyone.

My reply to that is this. I may be incoherent, but my hermenuetical method, my view of history (dispensational), my soteriology(biblicist), my view of the scriptures(fundamental), and my eschatology (pre-mil) fit together and don't contradict one another or the scriptures. Too bad in a forum like this it would be virtually impossible to explain because of the clunkiness of written text in little boxes.

 

[Debby in Philly]

And I think all the chatter is a waste of time.

Preach the gospel.
Ask folks to repent and be saved.
Disciple them in the faith.

That's my 3 points.

 

[JGrayhound]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
And I think all the chatter is a waste of time.

Preach the gospel.
Ask folks to repent and be saved.
Disciple them in the faith.

That's my 3 points.

But the discussion (or "chatter") helps define terms such as "gospel", "repent", "saved", "faith"....it even informs how we "preach" and "disciple" and "ask" or evangelize.

 

[lilrabbi]

Scott J - HAHA sorry! "Chosen by God" is Sproul's. "Chosen but Free" is Geisler's. Sorry...I've spent so much time in both...lol...Geisler's was written to "refute" Sproul's work and others'...but for me...it cemented me deeper in the "calvinist" camp.

Everything you say about freewill in your post is dead-on target. Pastor Larry sounds like a smart dude. I think it was in reading "Willing to Believe where I first learned how these "tensions" are so beautifully explained by Jonathan Edwards and others. The tensions do not become tensions at all, but strengthen eachother when properly understand.

What you posted is just it, those who go on sinning do so because the WANT and CHOOSE to. They are in bondage, but willingly. Its only of grace that they are changed and enabled to believe the wondrous truths of salvation. No saved person ever says, "why did you save me, God!?! How dare you violate my personal freedom!"

 

[lilrabbi]

Biblicist - I'm sorry. You seem a bit incoherent. I read your post and I'm still confused...what did you mean by it???

lol

 

[Biblicist]

Originally posted by lilrabbi:
Biblicist - I'm sorry. You seem a bit incoherent. I read your post and I'm still confused...what did you mean by it???

lol

I thought I was clear that I like pickles on my hamburger, but I suppose not.

See what I mean about not being able to communicate in here?



I will say, however, in response to the other brother's post, that there are plenty of people that are truly "enslaved" by their sin that don't want to do it anymore. They are willing, but unable to change their lives. i.e. Drug addicts, etc.

To say that the lost choose to go on sinning because they want to and that the saved no longer want to because they are enlightened I think is incorrect. This is a necessary invention by some Calvinists to put the blame of sin back on man. This is necessary because the system itself puts the blame on God, which is not biblical.

A "true" Calvinist will at least tell you that they believe God is the author of sin and that they believe He elects some to heaven and some to hell. Logically, without that element, the system contradicts itself as I mentioned before. WITH that element, the argument makes perfect sense logically, its just not biblical.

 

[Daniel David]

So, who has the final say in salvation, man or God?

That is all I want one of the self-proclaimed 'biblicists' to answer. Thanks guys.

 

[lilrabbi]

I'm not sure what "true" calvinists you've been reading or listening to, but that's not quite accurate, IMO.

-saints do not stop sinning all at once, and the fact that they DO stop sinning more and more as they are being sanctified is not because they are simply "enlightened" - its because their nature has been changed.

-God is not the author of sin. He made angels and man with the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. It was Lucifer's choice (and the other fallen angels) as well as man's choice to sin.

-Obviously, there is double predestination. If God elects only some to be saved, then He is obviously leaving some out, thereby "electing" them to Hell. I believe that. What you look over is HOW God brings about the salvation of the elect and the condemnation of the non-elect. What does God have to do to the elect? Give them life so they will love Him again. What does God have to do to the non-elect to send them to Hell? NOTHING. He just lets them choose as they want.

Praise God He doesn't leave all of us to our own free will!!!

 

[lilrabbi]

Daniel - that's what it all comes down to...I think you got'em pickled

 

[russell55]

A "true" Calvinist will at least tell you that they believe God is the author of sin

Please quote one who says that.

Logically, without that element, the system contradicts itself as I mentioned before.

Proof please. If it's a true contradiction, then you should be able to put it in A = nonA form.

 

[lilrabbi]

Are there calvinists in Canada? Maybe the french aren't so bad. (i'm just your stereotypical American who isn't aware of anything canadian except for your bacon and your geese)

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Biblicist:

I will say, however, in response to the other brother's post, that there are plenty of people that are truly "enslaved" by their sin that don't want to do it anymore. They are willing, but unable to change their lives. i.e. Drug addicts, etc.

A)People are saved out of drug addiction.

B) People who become addicted make willful choices... and continue to make them.

You apparently believe that the addiction causes the sinfulness. I believe the sinfulness causes the addiction... and is the greater factor in perpetuating it even giving consideration for chemical dependency.

To say that the lost choose to go on sinning because they want to and that the saved no longer want to because they are enlightened I think is incorrect. This is a necessary invention by some Calvinists to put the blame of sin back on man.

It is no invention. The Bible puts the responsibility for sin on man.

All sin is willful. The immediate decision leading to the sin may have been an "accident" but the series of choices and mindsets leading to the sin were willful.

This is necessary because the system itself puts the blame on God, which is not biblical.

Nope. Your lack of understanding or else willingness to misrepresent the views of others does not make your argument true.

A "true" Calvinist will at least tell you that they believe God is the author of sin and that they believe He elects some to heaven and some to hell.

Again, this demonstrates that you either don't know what Calvinists believe or else are willing to misrepresent the position.

What you have described is a hyper-calvinist. They take parts of scripture out of the context of the whole and draw 'logical' conclusions derived from man's wisdom that contradict other parts of scripture. They basically take the opposite "logic" from the various shades of non-calvinists.

Logically, without that element, the system contradicts itself as I mentioned before.

Nope.

If I am a fireman who enters a burning house to find 3 unconscious victims that I must choose from for rescue, I am not responsible for their being in the house to begin with.

WITH that element, the argument makes perfect sense logically, its just not biblical.

Of course not... of course it isn't what Calvinists believe either. You have defeated your straw man. Congratulations.