lukecash12
New member
lukecash12,
I don't know how to say this except to say you're just wrong.
I mean, of course Calvin was not the only source of what is called Calvinist doctrine but the only Calvinists you'll find that will deny this stuff are those that I refer to as lay persons. People who are just regular folks that sit in a pew on Sunday and believe whatever the preacher says because he's the expert and they aren't and aren't interesting in becoming one. Any educated Calvinist will not deny a word of what I've said and in fact they'd likely be offended by your attempt to soften their core doctrines. And make no mistake, they do consider this to be a core doctrine.
And you, an Arminian, are every bit as much a product of the Reformation as any Calvinist. Their attempt to rename themselves serves them in two ways. It serves to muddy the water by distancing themselves from Calvin (not because of his doctrine but because he was a horrible human being) and it serves to obscure Arminianism! I'm not sure why you'd be willing to go along with that.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I've been made to understand that whatever educational, and more importantly factual, leaps and bounds I demonstrate you will reiterate the same tired old statements.
Let's see... you've been around since 2003 and if you didn't miss it, this silliness of "Reformed thinkers are ultimately just Greek thinkers" was blown out of the water with post #15 here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53669 I somehow doubt you've ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith either, otherwise you would know there are manifestly more influences than Calvin, and you would know exactly how most Reformed thinkers contemplate double predestination.
It's more than a little evident, reading your own past material, that "you're just wrong" has for some time now been a cop-out in the face of having to demonstrate why you're right. It is impossible to educate someone, or talk with that person about material requiring sufficient education, if they demonstrably despise education and correcting themselves.
In fact, I canvassed a few heavily educated Reformed thinkers here, and the only quibble I heard from one of them was that when I defined double predestination near the beginning of the thread, I left the reader's mind open to assume that either predestination was exactly the same kind of predestination.
Last edited: