>>3243
You're not a brainlet. Your instinct on Calvinism being a fundamentally broken dumpster fire of a soteriology is correct. All philosophical/theological soteriologies, whether Calvinism or Arminiaism or Molinism, etc. ultimately have as their goal the resolution of the seeming paradox of God's Sovereignty and mankind's responsibility/free will co-existing. The reason why Calvinism is a dumpster fire is because if fails spectacularly in resolving the paradox of the simultaneous existence of God's Sovereignty (i.e. God knows all, including everyone's ultimate fates, and everything is ultimately under his control and will go according to his plan, period) and mankind's responsibility (i.e. we are not just pre-programmed robots or God's sock-puppets. We will bear responsibility for our actions at the Dread Judgement, which thus implies some form of free will on our part.) Calvinism fails spectacularly at this, because it essentially tries to resolve this paradox by effectively removing mankind's responsibility/free will from the equation entirely. As such, Calvinism can be refuted from a purely non-scholarly common sense logic approach. I realize that Calvinism can run on a spectrum, and some may even mix and match it with other soteriologies, so I know I'm going to get some "Not muh Calvinsim! You're misrepresenting!" responses. Nevertheless, for simplicity's sake, I'm going to argue against the most common streams of Calvinism: 5 point and 4 point. I'm also going to present the popular TULIP acronym slightly out of order for the purposes for argument emphasis.
First off, let's go through the classic TULIP acronym of proper 5 point Calvinism (once again slightly out of order to drive a certain point home.):
T- Total Depravity: Man is so totally depraved (i.e. "dead" in his sins) that he only has the free will to sin, and cannot turn to Christ under his own power at all.
U- Unconditional Election: In spite of our condition, God "Elects" whoever he wishes, not based on any works or internal merit of the individual, but simply just cause, based on his mercy.
I- Irresistible Grace: Once called/Elected by God, it is impossible to go against this calling or fall away, which leads directly to….
P- Perseverance of the Saints: Or as it is more popularly/colloquially known: "Once Saved Always Saved" which speaks for itself.
L- Limited Atonement: Once again, I saved this point for last, because all of the other points ultimately lead up to this point, and the implications that follow. Basically, according to this point, Jesus Christ only died, spilled his blood to wash away our sins, and resurrected, only to save the Elect, as implied by the four prior points.
Combined, these points present a host of disturbing problems:
1. All men are naturally completely helpless to come to God under their own power.
2. Thus, a man can only be saved if God specifically Elects him, i.e. metaphorically touches him with his finger/Effectually Calls him, and thus transforms him in such a way that he is able to turn to God.
3. Under this system, God can literally save everyone. Since everyone is equally "dead" in their sins, and thus can not be saved unless God essentially allows them to be saved, and no one is called based on inherit merit/works/etc., he can transform/Effectually Call and thus save everyone if he wants to.
4. This then paints a picture of God being, at best, capricious and arbitrary, essentially playing a cosmic game of "eenie meanie minie mo" with men's souls and salvation. At worst, it portrays a cruel God who chooses some for salvation, and allows others to flail about helplessly as they march towards their inevitable predestination in Hell, because… reasons.
5. Thus, the concept of human responsibility is rendered a sad joke. At the Dread Judgement, if God says "You are condemned by your own responsibility to the lake of fire" a sinner can effectively fire back with "You literally did not choose me, and thus I was literally incapable of turning to you in the first place. How am I responsible?"