Calvinists love to jab Arminians over the loss of salvation. In particular, they love to boast in the assurance of salvation. I think Scott McKnight (an Arminian) was right in his claim that the typical Christian in the pew is an Arminian except for eternal security. Doesn't that smack of self-centeredness? I think that Calvinists would do better if they emphasized the nature of regeneration. The same truth is taught in Paul under the metaphor of quickening. By its very nature, regeneration (and quickening) imply that that which was not alive became alive. An agent cannot be the cause of its own existence. I did not cause my birth. I am not the source of my own life. Hence, regeneration must precede conversion. Otherwise, why in the world did Jesus say what He did in John 3? And why was Nicodemus confused by it? And why did Jesus respond to Nicodemus' question as He did? The metaphor of "born again" is meaningless from an Arminian perspective, it seems to me. It causes more confusion than clariy. Eph. 2 seems completely at odds with the notion that a person has the freedom to choose salvation at will.