Calvinist's favorite question

 Here is one line of questions that Calvinists often employee:

Please answer these two questions. Please be specific.

1. What is the difference between you and the unbeliever such that you chose to trust Christ and the unbeliever did not?

2. Who made that difference?

PREDICTIONS: People will fall back to "We chose differently because we had the free will to choose differently."

This is not an answer. People choose things for a reason. You choose vanilla because you prefer vanilla. My question is the equivalent of: Why do you prefer vanilla, and why does the other person dislike vanilla and prefer chocolate? What makes the difference between you two such that you prefer different flavors? And who made that difference?

What this Calvinist doesn't realize is that he is "begging the question."  To "beg the question" is a debate fallacy where one assumes the premise that is being debated.  Feinberg makes this same mistake when he wrote:

"On the one hand, indeterminists [non-Calvinists] 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).

What Feinberg and other Calvinist's with this question must 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 explanation 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, its not that non-Calvinists are arguing that their is NO reasons or causes for the morally free choices, we just believe that the chooser determines the choice, the actor determines the act.  There are things outside the agent that influence and affect his will, but in order for it to be considered free (and thus morally accountable) the choice itself must not be determined by an outside force.  This is called "self-determination" or more commonly referred to as "free will." 

So, back to the original questions:   

1. What is the difference between you and the unbeliever such that you chose to trust Christ and the unbeliever did not?

Answering the question as to how one came to choose to follow Christ while someone else doesn't is like asking a Calvinist why God chose them instead of someone else.  It is a mystery.  Whether speaking about our free choice or God's free choice, it matters not, both Calvinists and Arminians must appeal to "mystery."

2. Who made that difference?

 This is where the Calvinist really tries to stump the non-Calvinist.  Because if you saying something like, "I believed and it was credited to me as righteousness." (Rom 4:3)

They reply saying something like, "So, YOU get the credit and you take glory away from our God.  Shame on you.  You are so prideful. Now you have something in which to boast!"

To which a non-Calvinist might say, "let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows the Lord." (Jer. 9:24)


When Paul speaks about "boasting" he is addressing the Pharisees pride in keeping the law, not in man's pride to believe and repent.
------------------------------------------------------

Here is a post from a Calvinist about this question followed by my response to him:

What distinguishes those who of their own free will believe the Gospel from those who do not believe the Gospel?

The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Church at Corinth asks a question that gets to the heart of the matter in the following Scripture.

1Corinthians 4:7. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Hermeneutics 101 teaches us not to pluck a verse from its context to try a validate a point, which is what I believe this question does.

We must always ask ourselves, "What was the intent of the author when writing?" Was his intent to prove Calvinism's claim that man has nothing to do with his being regenerated and thus saved?  Was Paul attempting to address and prove the Calvinist's point that God has effectually caused us to be faithful and good? Well, let's take an HONEST and OBJECTIVE look at the entire context of this passage and judge rightly:

Quote:

1 So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. 6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

It seems clear that Paul is addressing the issue of some people preferring Apollos over Paul or vice-versa. He begins by speaking of the "secret things of God" that have been "entrusted" to him and the other teachers. Could this be the "things" that he later refers to as what is "received" by God? Doesn't it appear that Paul is addressing a completely different matter than your question suggests? Read on...

The second verse goes on to show that those who are entrusted with this secret things of God must "prove faithful." Now, why exactly must the unconditionally chosen and effectually called be proven faithful? Wouldn't God perfectly know what he has Irresistibly caused in the life of his elected one?

A Calvinist might suggest that the person must be "proven" to the people by their fruits, but Paul contradicts this in the very next verses saying, 

"I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts." At that time each will receive his praise from God.

Why would God praise man for right motives if indeed God is the one who controls such motives? Shouldn't He praise Himself for effectually making them faithful and with right motives?

I think Calvinists would do well to follow Pauls warning when he writes, "Do not go beyond what is written."

Paul continues saying, "Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

This proves my earlier point that the subject being addressed here is believers who are taking pride in one teacher over another. Which brings another interesting question to pose for the Calvinist. Assuming Calvinism is correct, what makes you better than the non-Calvinistic believer? Why are you choosing the correct doctrine of soteriology while others don't?