If certain doctrine A is the true doctrine on a matter, and I as a Christian believe such doctrine, I can only credit God. If I disbelieve it, I can only blame myself.
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?
This is where I don't think the comparison is valid, since God has said in His Word that there are some things that are secret that He has not revealed.
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.
But again, if LFW is true, there is no secret as to the basis of a person's decision. If it is a good decision, the credit (or benefit, if you will) goes to the chooser.
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.
This is the same twist that Cypress tried to make above, but I think it still fails. Who in their right mind would choose hell? Well, you and I as Christians did not choose hell, so we must have a better mind than those who did
.
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)
On what basis or why does an agent determine a certain choice? Nevermind, I know your answer already - mystery. Feel like we are playing Who's On First?
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:
Feinberg (who is more Calvinistic) wrote:
"On the one hand, indeterminists {non-Calvinist} claim that we do not act without reasons. On the other hand, they deny that any reasons or other causes serve as sufficient conditions for what is chosen. But if nothing is a sufficient condition to incline the will to choose one thing over another, then how do we choose at all? If the causal influences really were at a stand-off, then we would not choose. Moreover, if causal influences are not sufficient to move the will to choose, then what is? Some indeterminists claim that a person just chooses. Fine, but on what basis? If the answer is that he or she just chooses, surely this is no explanation at all. If the indeterminist argues that the choice is made in accord with what appears to be the best reason(s), then, in fact, the act is causally determined (reasons have functioned as causes sufficient to produce the act)" (Feinberg, p. 36).
This appears to be essetially what you are asking and attempting to argue, right?
What you (and Feinberg) need to realize is that the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explaination is required.
Ciocchi, who debated Feinberg, put it this way: "the choice between available options "is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).
So, while there are influenctial "reasons" a person might have for making a choice these cannot necessarily be defined in terms of what "determined" the choice..for the agent himself is the determiner of his choices. That process is beyond our full comprehesion and thus remains mysterious...
