Calvinists are synergists

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thankfully, your salvation isn't based on accepting Calvinism or demonstrating a proper understanding thereof.

The Archangel

Bingo

 

[The Archangel]

When you are convinced that you are right then your certitudes just get the better of you.

But doesn't that knife cut both ways?

The Archangel

 

[Revmitchell]

Just because you disagree with our view does not mean you understand it. You are not the arbiter of truth, you are especially not the arbiter of truth for our position, and you do not get to re-define our words to fit your errant ideas, no matter how much you try. You have yet to demonstrate that you do understand. So, whatever silliness you seem to want to label us with, it's hard to label someone else as "silly" when you're insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, that 2+2=5.

I readily affirm there are non-Calvinists that have a good and precise understanding of Calvinism. You just aren't one of them. In fact, you've never demonstrated understanding (and the key word there is "Demonstrated"). I wouldn't care if you go on rejecting Calvinism as long as you demonstrate that you understand it, which you have yet to do. Thankfully, your salvation isn't based on accepting Calvinism or demonstrating a proper understanding thereof.

The Archangel

Again, not unsual for calvys to accuse others of not understanding. It is a go to pejorative to undermine others with whom you disagree.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would simply ask when Mohler, et al. have "degraded others' beliefs?" I understand what you're describing with your mother about the RCC, but I have no knowledge of Mohler doing such a thing. In fact, Mohler and Danny Akin are the best of friends, and Akin is nowhere near a Calvinist. Don't transfer your ill feelings about your mother's actions onto others simply because you perceive them to be doing something similar.

The Archangel

They are degraded when Calvinism is presented as thee orthodox paragon of the Christian world.

 

[The Archangel]

Again, not unsual for calvys to accuse others of not understanding. It is a go to pejorative to undermine others with whom you disagree.

Demonstrate proper understanding, then you'll have a leg upon which to stand and a platform from which to cast aspersions.

And, I couldn't help but notice that you didn't deal with any substance in any post--you just get all kinds of soft ad hominem.

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But doesn't that knife cut both ways?

The Archangel

No

 

[The Archangel]

They are degraded when Calvinism is presented as thee orthodox paragon of the Christian world.

No... You made a specific accusation and now are using a generality to back up that specific accusation. You've made the accusation against Mohler (et al); now, "show the body" or withdraw your accusation.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

No

So then... you never claim to be right while saying someone else is wrong?

The Archangel

 

[Revmitchell]

Demonstrate proper understanding, then you'll have a leg upon which to stand and a platform from which to cast aspersions.

And, I couldn't help but notice that you didn't deal with any substance in any post--you just get all kinds of soft ad hominem.

The Archangel

Uh you haven't disproven anything I have said. All you have done is made a claim. Just because you come along and claim I am wrong or I don't understand in no way compels me to entertain such inane behavior. When you post something of substance I will be glad to address it. Until then "you don't understand" is not substance.

 

[Revmitchell]

So back to the op:

Since man is accused of cooperating with God in salvation because of performing an action (believing) and that being deemed as synergism, then the act being performed of preaching the gospel so that men might be save must also be deemed as cooperating with God in the salvation of man. Whether man cooperates via believing or preaching does not change the fact that man is in cooperation with God for the salvation of man. Just because man cooperates with God for the salvation of another in no way negates the synergism that is going on. It is still a synergistic act that may result in the salvation of man.

When man responds by preaching the gospel or believing does that mean man gets credit for the salvation of his own life or others? Absolutely not. It's not even remotely possible. The credit for salvation can only go to Him who can give it. At the point of offering it the credit stops and no one can impose upon it. That is the point of no return.

We are all synergistic. Calvy;s can define it however they want to. It doesn't change the nature of what is going on.

 

[The Archangel]

Uh you haven't disproven anything I have said. All you have done is made a claim. Just because you come along and claim I am wrong or I don't understand in no way compels me to entertain such inane behavior. When you post something of substance I will be glad to address it. Until then "you don't understand" is not substance.

Just because you come along and claim that you're right and do understand does not make it so. You do not get to define words. There are agreed-upon terms and you simply ignore them because you prefer your own definition because your own definition fits your own presuppositions better. Or, perhaps it's because you want to do nothing more than eye-poke others. Either way, it is you who are in the wrong. I mean, really... how many logical fallacies can you commit in one thread. This has to be a new record for you. It has been pointed out to you by several here how you are mistaken in your definition of "synergy," yet you refuse to listen. Instead you insist on your re-definition when no one from "our" side agrees with it.

Of course, as you said, you don't have to engage with my posts. But you're welping around rather than facing and discussing the issues like a man.

Now, I'm sure I'll receive a "I know you are but what am I" type of response claiming, but not demonstrating, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Try to back your claims up instead of playing the part of the hypocrite who always feigns yet never demonstrates understanding while you accuse others of doing the same.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

We are all synergistic. Calvy;s can define it however they want to. It doesn't change the nature of what is going on.

So, then, what gives you the right to define what a term means... in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No... You made a specific accusation and now are using a generality to back up that specific accusation. You've made the accusation against Mohler (et al); now, "show the body" or withdraw your accusation.

The Archangel

Oh so you are making demands of me now.... That’s funny! And again, you prove my point about you Calvinists. Let me ask you, are you an idealist? Sure sounds like you are.

 

[The Archangel]

Oh so you are making demands of me now.... That’s funny! And again, you prove my point about you Calvinists. Let me ask you, are you an idealist? Sure sounds like you are.

No. You made the accusation, not I.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

So, then, what gives you the right to define what a term means... in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

The Archangel

there has been no evidence given.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just because you come along and claim that you're right and do understand does not make it so. You do not get to define words. There are agreed-upon terms and you simply ignore them because you prefer your own definition because your own definition fits your own presuppositions better. Or, perhaps it's because you want to do nothing more than eye-poke others. Either way, it is you who are in the wrong. I mean, really... how many logical fallacies can you commit in one thread. This has to be a new record for you. It has been pointed out to you by several here how you are mistaken in your definition of "synergy," yet you refuse to listen. Instead you insist on your re-definition when no one from "our" side agrees with it.

Of course, as you said, you don't have to engage with my posts. But you're welping around rather than facing and discussing the issues like a man.

Now, I'm sure I'll receive a "I know you are but what am I" type of response claiming, but not demonstrating, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Try to back your claims up instead of playing the part of the hypocrite who always feigns yet never demonstrates understanding while you accuse others of doing the same.

The Archangel

Ok well since it has degraded to this kind of rhetoric I will leave you to it. God bless

 

[The Archangel]

there has been no evidence given.

Spoken like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thatbrian]

Why, do you follow it? But irrespective of this it is about discipleship and there are many ways to achieve that... or perhaps it’s to test your own personal obedience. However I would not consider it the only way to make a connection... but I don’t stress out about it either. If God wants you, he is going to take you.

You seem to ignore that God made the rules. He gave the Great Commission as the means to call in the sheep.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So, then, what gives you the right to define what a term means... in spite of all evidence to the contrary?

The Archangel

Nothing gives him the right...he is just telling you that this is his observation, as wrong as that observation is.

Look he has is a pastor, a man that can and I’m sure does influence others. The most you can do is present your views via debate...even by conflict. But you will have to admit some will always agree with him and others will always champion your arguement.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You seem to ignore that God made the rules. He gave the Great Commission as the means to call in the sheep.

No kidding