Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

What is interesting is that John and I differ on our understanding of Soteriology, but respect each other and don't make false accusations regarding the other. I understand John's position and respect it, and know he has defendable exegetical reasons for believing as he does, and, I hope, he believes the same of me.

The problem is not those who hold a defendable exegetical position. The problem is, on one side, the hate mongers who know virtually nothing of the Soteriology of Monergism and constantly post known falsehoods and utter nonsense, quoting "Calvinists" and demanding all Monergists walk in lockstep with the quote (usually taken out of context). They only know what they have been taught, "Calvinism bad! Calvinism bad! Calvinism bad!" And as a consequence they cannot and will not learn, but choose to remain willfully ignorant.

On the other side is our group of "Cage Calvinists." The are young, not necessarily in years but in understanding, who think that going on the attack is better than honest, calm discussion.

As Paul puts it in Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Which is why, when this thread was opened to post and discuss the verses Monergists are said to misunderstand, the first post after the OP is a childish personal attack without one word of scripture and completely off topic.

I suspect we are wasting our time and the board's band width. There will not be honest discussion. The emotional involvement of the antagonists is much too profound to allow such discussion.

 

That's a good question (except for the "calvies" slur). I see the 5 points of TULIP as being linked. If Total Depravity is not true, then Unconditional Election is not necessary for the lost person, not being totally depraved, might meet some condition of Divine election.

If the Atonement is not limited to believers (Atonement - At One Ment, the person who is At One with God because of the Atonement) then Efficacious Grace is no longer required, as all would be "At One" with God - nothing between that person and God which would limit both fellowship and relationship.

And, of course, if God's Grace is not efficacious, then there could be no security of the believer.

 

Or we define terms and words. Before any meaningful discussion can begin we must first define terms. Failure to do so causes nothing but confusion.

 

By that do you mean "people who disagree with me?" That seemed to be the case in the long, drawn out discussions of Penal Substitution.

 

Even though I am not a Dispensationalist (or at best a minimalist Dispensationalist, Old, New, and Kingdom) you have never seen me use that term. Using such terms are a way of dismissing or marginalizing the position before the discussion has a chance to begin.

I am not the only person in the thread who took exception to the term.

 

How do you get there?