Why There’s No Middle Position Between Calvinism and Arminianism - by David de Bruyn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

This utterly Scriptureless presentation was not written to explain, uplift, or instruct. No, the author wants to force the reader into a binary choice based solely on his Calvinism. This is what we find time after time. Calvinists only want to talk about Calvinism. They will never discuss the Bible unless they can insert their Calvinism.

He will assert that there is no middle position while simultaneously admitting there is a mix of beliefs: 

The questions of grace and election themselves have binary answers, but how you hold the matrix of the doctrines of grace is not a binary matter.

Thus he acknowledges the legitimacy of having a mix of each position even as he claims it's not possible.

Not only must we deem this Bad Bible Teaching, it is utter nonsense.

----------------------

(...)

In this debate, there are a basic set of questions, and these questions can only be answered in a certain number of ways. All of those questions have been asked, and the possible answers have all been given. What remains is to choose which answers you think are the most biblically faithful. (This is the beginning of the author's problem, that there is no other way to look at the issue as he frames it. And his framing uses pejorative language designed to tilt the binary equation in favor of Calvinism.)

Here is a suggested list of those questions, which have been answered variously for two thousand years.

• First, can human beings believe on Christ in their natural state, or does their natural will need God’s grace to believe? (Notice the dishonest construction of this choice. He wants us to think that we come to faith either naturally or supernaturally. But no Christian believes that coming to faith is a human process.) 

• Second, does God’s grace enable choice, or does it secure belief? That is, does God’s intervention enable everyone to believe, putting the ball firmly back in the human court of free will, or does it effectually persuade a person to believe? (Again we see dishonest framing. On one hand he suggests that the other side believe God enables everyone to choose, but then asserts that this would mean faith is of human origin. 

He then goes on to contrast that with "effectually persuade," as if this was the other side of the coin. But Calvinists don't believe that God persuades. Rather, God predetermines. There is no persuasion.)

• Third, did God choose people to salvation before creation for His own reasons, or did God foresee people’s choices and choose them on that basis? (This is a distinction without a difference. If God chose everyone who is saved, then this doesn't matter.) 

Probably most Christians will answer the first question by stating that our wills need God’s grace. (He presumes the choice of "most Christians," but only in terms of his Calvinism. This is the false premise upon which the rest of his logic is built.

Calvinism's "total depravity" means that humans are unable to choose faith. The reason is that they believe choice is a "work," thus to have choice robs God of His sovereignty by making man part of his own salvation. But these claims are never backed up by Scripture. There is no Bible verse that tells us that choice is a work.)

The second question is where the differences begin. If God’s grace creates merely the potential to believe, then the decisive factor is the human will. This is the position of Arminianism. (Maybe there is some Arminian statement of faith that makes such assertions. We have never seen it. But again we quibble with the framing. No Christian would use such language like "merely the potential to believe." The diminutives tilt the argument. 

If God is actually the savior of all men...

1 Tim. 4:10 ...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

...then the contingency must be concerning how the potential becomes reality. And that is the true crux of the debate. The matter is simply that He is the savior of those who believe. 

And this is what really galls us. Calvinists want to parse and dissect the details of this process when it truly doesn't matter. The fact is we believe and are saved. The minutiae of this process is completely irrelevant.)

If, however, God’s grace is effectual, then it does not merely create the potential for faith, but inevitably leads to faith. This is the position of Calvinism. (Inevitable faith isn't faith at all. Predetermined faith is an oxymoron.)

The third question flows out of how you answer the second, and vice versa. If grace creates merely the potential to believe, then election cannot be selective, only responsive. Election is then conditional: conditioned upon people using the supplied potential grace to believe. This is the position of Arminianism. (Does the author understand what the doctrine of Election is? Election is God's sovereign choice to save certain people. There is no such thing as conditional election.)

If, however, grace secures a response, then election can only be selective. Election is then unconditional: no conditions met by humans in time determined God’s choice in eternity past. This is the position of Calvinism.

How you answer those questions determines where you land in this debate. And the answers are, as we’ve just shown, fairly binary. (Well, no. The author's framing is certainly binary, but the debate is certainly not.)

You take the Arminian position or the Calvinist one. (Thus the author wants to force everyone into a false choice.)

Yes, some answer by denying that the choices are true alternatives and simply say, “It’s both”. But that is not an appeal to mystery or paradox. That is an appeal to illogicality. (No, it's not. "It's both" is quintessentially a paradox, and paradoxes by nature are in tension.)

Scripture does teach that salvation involves both divine determination and human responsibility – that’s the mystery. (?? The author immediately deflects by deeming the tension a mystery. Apparently it's illogical when his theological opponents do it, but it's a mystery when he does it.)

It does not teach that election is both conditional and unconditional – that’s just nonsense. (But, but... The author used those terms above, as we pointed out. Now it's nonsense? What?)

Scripture does teach that God must draw the sinner and the sinner must voluntarily come – that’s the mystery. (The author's Calvinism forces this into the realm of mystery. That is, because Calvinism teaches Election the voluntary aspect places Calvinism into tension, and that means that it must be deemed a mystery.)

It does not teach that grace is both prevenient (Undefined term.)

and effectual – that’s just contradictory. (Hmm. After attributing a contradiction to being a mystery, the author reverses course at will.)

No one gets to postulate absurdity, contradiction, or nonsense as “mystery”. (Except the author, of course...)

(Now the author will make a series of undocumented claims based solely on his predilection for Calvinism.)

In other words, there isn’t a middle position between prevenient grace and effectual grace. There isn’t a middle position between unconditional and conditional election. Which means there isn’t a middle position between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Now, you can certainly hold your Arminianism or Calvinism in varying degrees of strength, (He immediately walks back his claims.)

and hold or modify some of the attendant doctrines of perseverance and limited atonement, and the ordo salutis. (The what?)

You might be a Calvinist who rejects limited atonement. You might be an Arminian who holds to eternal security. You might be a Calvinist who places faith before regeneration. Strict Arminians, moderate Arminians, moderate Calvinists and strict Calvinists are all orthodox Christians occupying different places on the spectrum of how God’s grace functions in salvation from eternity past to eternity future. (Then what is the point of your article, sir? You have completely negated your entire presentation. There is no middle ground except for the middle ground??)

The questions of grace and election themselves have binary answers, but how you hold the matrix of the doctrines of grace is not a binary matter. (Semantics. Word games. Distinctions without differences.)

But in the end, you’re some kind of Calvinist, or some kind of Arminian. (A nonsense conclusion. As the author just admitted, there's all sorts of middle ground.)

(...)