The proof is in the nature of your posts, getting caught in plagarism, and error in both doctrine and facts. If I was the only one who made the observation, I would think maybe I was wrong. That is not the case.
It's not plagiarism unless you attempt to publish a post for the sole purpose of taking credit for another persons work. The fact that I admitted that I had an ulterior motive to catch someone, and even admitted to what I did shows that it was not plagiarism.
And error in doctrine? Of course you would say that because you don't agree. Come over to an IFB forum and see how well Calvinsts fair in numbers. Location and number of those who agree compared to those who don't is not the standard for determining error. Your argument is based on trying a sheep with a jury full of wolves.
If the majority rules, since Calvinism is in the minority in all Christian circles as a whole, then I guess that makes you wrong by default.
No comment from me. I will let those who caught you back it up.
And yet you used something as proof that you just admitted that YOU can't back up.
Again, another lie. Convicted 1 is a non Calvinist, and his conclusions are the same. Your action transcends the doctrine.
You won't speak for others when you don't have the proof, but now you speak for Convicted when he addressed you too? Nice side-step by the way. The comment was directed toward a pattern that you and your buddies/ilk have consistently demonstrated toward me and many others on this forum.
I have no ilk, and do not put words and associations in my mouth. No, I have no degree in theology. The fact that laymen can crush you on every post shouts you have no degree.
As usual, the typical Calvinist egotism speaking. Nobody crushes anybody. It's a dialogue and a debate with people that disagree with each other. Crushing is a subjective term that anyone who thinks they're right will use pejoratively against anyone they disagree with and judge the outcome of a debate simply because they (you) THINK they're(you're) right.
That is a pathetic way to analyze debates and quite possibly one of the most unintelligent statements I've ever seen.
To me, posters have justly put you in your place. The light has shone on you, and your purposes here are very much in focus.
The only thing you and "posters" have done is show how much of a jerk you can be when someone doesn't kiss the ring of Calvinism or Reformed Theology (same thing). The only light that has shone is that Calvinist can't debate anything beyond the same misinterpreted proof texts, and that they are very knowledgeable about Calvinist theologians, and very unknowledgeable about Bible.
I have rarely seen the Non Calvinists here quote from creeds or other men's works. I've seen them argue the Bible and when the Calvinist gets stuck, post something from Knox, Spurgeon, Pink, Sproul, Kennedy, Piper, London Baptist Confession, and never deal squarely with a text that is debated. Calvinism 101 is the same as Watchtower 101: don't address any verses outside of the proof texts that the organization has established as the truth. Doing so might lead to a change of mind because you will realize that there are other Bible verses outside of Romans 9 and Ephesians 2, and they might realize that the Bible has a book called Revelation at the end of it (prophecy being a subject that Calvinists can't handle).
What you have proven is that you worship men and follow the doctrines of men. My theology is based on no creeds, confessions, or "Institutes" and if that makes me wrong because the forum population is Calvinsts 20 Non-Calvinists 10 then:
"..I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" Acts 24:14