Achilles' Heel of Calvinism?

The Achilles heel of Calvinism (or rather Hyper Calvinism) is the born again before faith teaching. Those who are skilled in their opposition to Calvinism attack the born again before faith view more often because it is viewed as the Achilles heel of that system. It is attacked more often than the system's ideas about sovereignty, predestination, and determinism. Of course, as I have shown, the regeneration before faith view is not the historic view of many leading Calvinists, such as Calvin himself. Still, it has become a commonly accepted belief that all Calvinists and "Reformed" folk believe in the born again before faith view. However, any debates I have had with Arminians do not have such Achilles' heel. I have always affirmed that faith and regeneration occur together and are so joined together that one does not exist without the other. 

Father was a debater and held many debates. When I was a young licentiate he used to give me advice on debating (I took four years of debate in college and was on the debate team). I have since had my own debates. He used to tell me to "go straight to the jugular" in a debate. In other words, attack the main weakness in the error you are opposing, their main argument(s), their jugular. I have tried to do that in debate. I also always had many arguments and proof texts to support my view, and ones to counter my opponent's view, but I generally tried to limit my arguments to a few of the most supporting texts. 

For instance, if the bible expressly says that all things come to pass by the will and decree of God, I will simply affirm what the text says. For instance, I might use this passage:

"Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, "When the Lord has not commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High?" (Lam. 3: 37-38)

Or this passage:

"In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory." (Eph. 1: 11-12)

Or this passage:

"For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. 11: 36)

The same would be true in defending limited atonement. I would select the clearest texts that support that view. It would also be true on the subject of "irresistible grace" or "effectual calling." KISS is not merely a rock group but an acronym for "keep it simple stupid." 

So, what would be the Achilles heel of Arminianism? Would it not be in that Arminians must in the end credit themselves for their salvation? Would it not be in how they say that God gives everyone a chance to be saved? Did he give those who died without ever hearing the word of God a chance to be saved? 

Another possible Achilles heel of predestination (Calvinism) is its supposed incompatibility with moral responsibility. It is at least the objection that is most often made and stressed. In this it is argued that there can be no responsibility where there is no ability. God would be unjust to hold accountable those who could not help doing what they are condemned for doing. 

Those who oppose "theistic determinism" say that it makes God the Devil, for it is the devil, and not God, they affirm, who causes the evil in the world. Therefore, Predestinarians worship the Devil. This is what Norman Geisler has said. But, on the other side, in rebuttal, it may well be said that non predestinarians believe in dualism, in two gods, one who causes all the good and one who causes all the evil.

Non Predestinarians will not accept the idea that God, in any sense, is a "cause" of any evil. They affirm that to believe God is a cause of evil is to indict God and make him responsible for sin, or the culprit. On this point I have written much in my series "Hardshells and Predestination." In those chapters I give my views on predestination and determinism. I am also presently working on a series on "Free Will & Determinism."

I believe in open dialogue and debate. Our Republic, our democracy, demands it. So too does the Christian community. I do not believe in censorship and cancel culture, but with some exceptions of course. Truth can only be generally known by debate, by hearing both pros and cons.