Why do Arminians...

[Hammster]

The point is you didn't prove anything.

Nothing except what I said I would prove.

Here's what you said:

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

No, I didn't grow up Calvinist. I wasn't even saved until my 20's. My dad is agnostic. When I started at CF, I was a four point Arminian. I really didn't like Calvinism. The threads I linked to were just a few of the ones I started to challenge Calvinism.

The evidence is there. Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me.

 

[Hammster]

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?

This is the type of post that leads me to believe, despite any claims to the contrary, that you know little of what Calvinism teaches. If you did, you'd never make this sort of post.

Calvinist believe that we are saved by grace through faith. That's common to most orthodoxy. So whether or not we "became apostate" to our initial beliefs is really quite irrelevant. What's relevant is that we were saved in the first place.

 

[Hammster]

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

No need. All one has to do is read the post.

 

[stan1953]

No need. All one has to do is read the post.

Sorry, but your OPINION does NOT equate to FACT.

 

[stan1953]

This is the type of post that leads me to believe, despite any claims to the contrary, that you know little of what Calvinism teaches. If you did, you'd never make this sort of post.
Calvinist believe that we are saved by grace through faith. That's common to most orthodoxy. So whether or not we "became apostate" to our initial beliefs is really quite irrelevant. What's relevant is that we were saved in the first place.

No this just points out the inconsistency of what was stated. What's relevant is how you got saved in the first place and if your believed it at salvation and reversed your position later on, that is apostasy.
I know what I learn from people like you Hammster so if it's not being conveyed accurately by you or yours, then who's fault is that?
Did you willfully accept Jesus as your savior or not?

 

[stan1953]

Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me.

That much is obvious.

 

[nobdysfool]

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?

Of course that assumes that your view is correct (free will confession), which you may believe to be true, but Calvinists see it differently. Why have such a problem with that? How does that threaten anyone? I say threaten because the reactions show all the earmarks of people feeling threatened by the Calvinist view. Calvinists are threatening no one.

Trying to browbeat us into accepting the synergist view is counter-productive and not very Christ-like. And simple reading through the posts shows that this is taking place. it's been that way for years now, and not a single convert to the synergist camp. Rather, several synergists (including Hammster) have become Calvinists, and we didn't have to browbeat them into it. They came willingly. Their eyes were opened to the truth.

 

[OzSpen]

A typical answer when one has no support from Scripture.

No, the showing your non sequitur logical fallacy is to show how your technique in discussion is to to include your premise in your conclusion. Such technique prevents a reasonable discussion from continuing.

You don't seem to be able to accept what you are doing in this fallacy that you use in conversation.

 

[OzSpen]

Why you have chosen to say it isn't is really beyond me.

That is an incoherent statement. Please write it in language that explains what you meant to say with 'to say it isn't is really'. Those words don't make logical sense to me.

 

[Hammster]

No this just points out the inconsistency of what was stated. What's relevant is how you got saved in the first place and if your believed it at salvation and reversed your position later on, that is apostasy.
I know what I learn from people like you Hammster so if it's not being conveyed accurately by you or yours, then who's fault is that?
Did you willfully accept Jesus as your savior or not?

Of course. That is true in Calvinism. So since you say you learn from me, now you know.

 

[Hammster]

That is an incoherent statement. Please write it in language that explains what you meant to say with 'to say it isn't is really'. Those words don't make logical sense to me.

Did you read the whole post? Here's the last part.

" The evidence is there. Why you have chosen to
say it isn't is really beyond me."

"it" refers to the "evidence is there". So refusing to believe it means he has refused to say that it isn't really there.

 

[OzSpen]

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

It was you who stated: 'That the synergists I encounter all use eisegesis'. Why are you glossing over that?

 

[OzSpen]

Did you read the whole post? Here's the last part.

" The evidence is there. Why you have chosen to
say it isn't is really beyond me."

"it" refers to the "evidence is there". So refusing to believe it means he has refused to say that it isn't really there.

The portion I chose was to demonstrate how incoherent you wrote in that portion. Incoherence does not make a point. I did read the whole post, but the incoherent last statement was confusing.

By the way, you still did not explain to me what you meant by that incoherent statement. Why not?

 

[nobdysfool]

No this just points out the inconsistency of what was stated. What's relevant is how you got saved in the first place and if your believed it at salvation and reversed your position later on, that is apostasy.
I know what I learn from people like you Hammster so if it's not being conveyed accurately by you or yours, then who's fault is that?
Did you willfully accept Jesus as your savior or not?

Accusing people of apostasy is against the rules of this forum. Once again you are assuming that your view is the only one that can be correct, and therefore accusing Hammster of apostasy because his view changed after Salvation. That is properly called growth in understanding of the Word.

No one comes into Christ with their theology fully formed. We learn, we grow, and we discover that what we thought we knew isn't correct. Any Christian who does not grow in knowledge and understanding of the Word is stuck at the basic level. Calvinists are not stuck.

 

[nobdysfool]

The portion I chose was to demonstrate how incoherent you wrote in that portion. Incoherence does not make a point. I did read the whole post, but the incoherent last statement was confusing.

By the way, you still did not explain to me what you meant by that incoherent statement. Why not?

Read it again, slowly. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Hammster]

The portion I chose was to demonstrate how incoherent you wrote in that portion. Incoherence does not make a point. I did read the whole post, but the incoherent last statement was confusing.

By the way, you still did not explain to me what you meant by that incoherent statement. Why not?

It wasn't incoherent if you read the whole post. In context.

And I did explain it. Why don't you understand what I said?

 

[Hammster]

It was you who stated: 'That the synergists I encounter all use eisegesis'. Why are you glossing over that?

I'm not glossing over it. I stand by it. But I can figure out if you are being critical because I, a Calvinist, said it, or if it's because you don't like accusations of that sort in general.

 

[OzSpen]

It wasn't incoherent if you read the whole post. In context.

And I did explain it. Why don't you understand what I said?

It's obvious you don't listen to feedback from me. I still do not know what you meant by that last statement. Please quit playing these kinds of games. I asked for an explanation because it was incoherent and you deny that. I tell you that it WAS incoherent to me as a reader.

Are you listening and prepared to explain?

 

[OzSpen]

Read it again, slowly. It makes perfect sense.

It does not make sense to me. Aren't you listening to what I wrote?

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not glossing over it. I stand by it. But I can figure out if you are being critical because I, a Calvinist, said it, or if it's because you don't like accusations of that sort in general.

So you are an accurate mind reader? Pull the other leg!