Why do Arminians...

[Hammster]

I always answer, so obviously you missed them or lost interest.

Writing "not applicable", or "that word is not there", are not valid responses, nor proper exegesis. That type of rhetoric does not convince anyone, so why should I bother responding. Make a valid effort and I will be more than happy to respond in like manner.

I made more of an effort than just doing a word search and posting the first verses that came up.

 

[Hammster]

My feedback addressed EXACTLY what you said.

If you had understood what I said, you wouldn't have posted this:

Exactly my point...why refer to a man for your beliefs?

 

[Hammster]

Sure, go ahead and prove you were not influenced by the Calvinistic doctrine.

www.christianforums.com/t7271980/
www.christianforums.com/t7265984/
www.christianforums.com/t7278307/
www.christianforums.com/t7259938/

There's some threads I started some years back.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.

My point was that, according to you, Paul was a synergist, given his answr to the jailer.

Your question suggests either:
1. not following all that closely to the conversation, or
2. not grasping the points made

 

[OzSpen]

That the synergists I encounter all use eisegesis.

ALL use eisegesis according to your Calvinistic conclusions. Sounds more like a non sequitur logical fallacy to me as you are including your premise in your conclusion.

Brother, why don't you admit that synergists will come to conclusions that are different from monergists and that this means you will label the synergistic conclusion as eisegesis. It's an unfair and inaccurate designation when you use the qualifier "ALL" and that applies to ALL on CF whom you designate as synergists.

Let's deal with individual posts on this forum and not your generalisations, 'ALL use eisegesis' when referring to synergists is an example of a biased perspective.

This quote appears across the web and has been variously attributed to Augustine and Aquinas: 'Without God I can't, but without me God won't'. Does anyone know where to locate this exact quote and context? Who is the correct writer? Or is it an invention?

Oz

 

[FreeGrace2]

That the synergists I encounter all use eisegesis.

Calvinists are among the most guilty of eisegesis.

Where are all those verses that actually say what RT claims?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You aren't answering the question.

The answer to your question is found in my question that you continue to dodge.

Are all choices an election? Yes or no.

We know that all elections involve choice.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Non sequitur.

A typical answer when one has no support from Scripture.

 

[stan1953]

www.christianforums.com/t7271980/
www.christianforums.com/t7265984/
www.christianforums.com/t7278307/
www.christianforums.com/t7259938/

There's some threads I started some years back.

Exactly how do they PROVE anything. I do see you style has changed much. You didn't seem to say a lot then either.

 

[Hammster]

My point was that, according to you, Paul was a synergist, given his answr to the jailer.

Your question suggests either:
1. not following all that closely to the conversation, or
2. not grasping the points made

You can't make an argument for that based on what Paul said. It's a narrative, not didactic.

 

[Hammster]

ALL use eisegesis according to your Calvinistic conclusions. Sounds more like a non sequitur logical fallacy to me as you are including your premise in your conclusion.

Brother, why don't you admit that synergists will come to conclusions that are different from monergists and that this means you will label the synergistic conclusion as eisegesis. It's an unfair and inaccurate designation when you use the qualifier "ALL" and that applies to ALL on CF whom you designate as synergists.

Let's deal with individual posts on this forum and not your generalisations, 'ALL use eisegesis' when referring to synergists is an example of a biased perspective.

This quote appears across the web and has been variously attributed to Augustine and Aquinas: 'Without God I can't, but without me God won't'. Does anyone know where to locate this exact quote and context? Who is the correct writer? Or is it an invention?

Oz

Why are you taking me to task for this? Stan is the one who introduced the eisegesis topic. You glossed right over that.

 

[Hammster]

The answer to your question is found in my question that you continue to dodge.

Are all choices an election? Yes or no.

We know that all elections involve choice.

Your questions don't give any definitions. I'm starting to think the words must mean the same thing.

 

[Hammster]

A typical answer when one has no support from Scripture.

It's a typical answer when your response has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Hammster]

Exactly how do they PROVE anything. I do see you style has changed much. You didn't seem to say a lot then either.

Did you notice the forum? Did you notice that I wasn't asking as a Calvinist?

 

[nobdysfool]

and you expect us to believe you did not grow up in a Calvinist environment, learning how the Bible supported Calvinism?

Apparently it is not understood or believed that most of the Calvinists here did NOT grow up in a Calvinist environment. Many of us once believed as the synergists here, but we learned more and got better. hard as this may be to believe, we are of the Calvinist persuasion, to one degree or another, because we see it in Scripture. Some of us were unwilling to accept it at first, but over time, we could not deny what we saw in Scripture. Sorry if that gives some heartburn, but we have a right to believe as we do, and none of the synergists here will change our minds, especially not by badgering, belittling, and demeaning us for believing as we do. That is what has been going on here, and it needs to stop, because it produces no results. I don't care how air-tight anyone thinks their argument is, if they cannot accept that not everyone agrees, then it is THEY who have the problem, not the Calvinists.

 

[Hammster]

www.christianforums.com/t6008048/

Another from 2007. I'm definitely not defending Calvinism.

 

[stan1953]

Did you notice the forum? Did you notice that I wasn't asking as a Calvinist?

The point is you didn't prove anything.

 

[stan1953]

Apparently it is not understood or believed that most of the Calvinists here did NOT grow up in a Calvinist environment. Many of us once believed as the synergists here, but we learned more and got better. hard as this may be to believe, we are of the Calvinist persuasion, to one degree or another, because we see it in Scripture. Some of us were unwilling to accept it at first, but over time, we could not deny what we saw in Scripture. Sorry if that gives some heartburn, but we have a right to believe as we do, and none of the synergists here will change our minds, especially not by badgering, belittling, and demeaning us for believing as we do. That is what has been going on here, and it needs to stop, because it produces no results. I don't care how air-tight anyone thinks their argument is, if they cannot accept that not everyone agrees, then it is THEY who have the problem, not the Calvinists.

Well, you could do a poll I guess, but if what you are saying is true, then most Calvinists here were saved by their free will confession and then became apostate as to their initial beliefs.
Not sure how that is reasoned out?

 

[stan1953]

Why are you taking me to task for this? Stan is the one who introduced the eisegesis topic. You glossed right over that.

and because I used it on a post about scripture you want to turn it around and us it as an indictment of all who don't hold your POV about RT without any rhyme or reason? That's pretty much school yard tactics Hammster.

 

[stan1953]

Non sequitur.

ONLY if you can demonstrate it, which you can't.