Adventures in Calvinism

I’ve been wondering if Calvinists are capable of not using “man-centered,” or one of its derivatives, when critiquing their opponent’s position. I’m serious. It is apparently the impenetrable weapon of choice. After all, if you’re “man-centered,” game’s over. You better get “God-centered” — and quick!

Observe the Triablogue’s latest post:

“Arminians start with the human-centered assumption that if God does not love all people undifferentiated, then he would be unjust to love some more than others. The Calvinist begins with the Biblical principle that because man is unworthy of grace and deserving only of death, God in his holiness, wisdom, and freedom chooses to love and elect any creature he desires.”

That’s how it is done, folks. As you see, the Calvinist has deftly disarmed his opponent. Discover the foundation in the logic, destroy it, and rebuild with your own foundation — God (Bible). Ignore the fact that your opponent likewise claims to build from the same foundation. He doesn’t. You know he doesn’t because he’s wrong. And he’s wrong because he doesn’t. Circles are a good thing. Try to stay in the circle; if you get out, you’re screwed!

What’s the Arminian to do?

Well, he could roll his eyes. After that, he could ask the Calvinist why his, the Arminian’s, belief in the desire and provision for all to be saved is “man-centered.” After all, there’s plenty of scripture that Arminians and most other Christians (Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, average “Bible-believing” evangelical, etc.) consult in order to construct their belief in the salvation of those outside the Church (or synagogue). Is this just “man-centered” exegesis? Or is “man-centered” just a polemical device?

And that’s why Calvinists (often) drive me nuts.