Especially when they're trying to preserve a pet doctrine.
That cuts both ways.
While words have various meanings depending on the context in which they are used that does not mean that the definition of words is a mere matter of opinion.
No, but usage is.
You simply don't get to readjust the definition of words to suit your needs when you run into what would otherwise be a glaring contradiction. If that were valid then how could any proposition ever to disproved!
Francis Schaeffer observed that the particulars do matter. But so does the application. If two fellows understand the concept of "will" but approach it differently their definition may well agree even if their own understanding doesn't.
Let's put it another way: One guy picks up a claw hammer and uses it to rip nails from a wall; the other picks up the same kind of hammer and uses it to punch nails into the wall. Neither is wrong until they insist the other fellow's not using the hammer properly, or doesn't understand what hammers are for, and is completely confused as to the nature and intention of hammers.
A Calvinist who gets stopped by a cop for running a stop sign...
Or two guys walk into a bar. And so on.
Are you the one who just said that?
You talkin' to me? Well I'm the only one here.:chuckle:
So you're saying that all doctrine is a matter of opinion?
I'd say that's pretty obvious. When doctrine is agreed upon by enough people it's known as "truth." When it's old enough it's called "divine" in some circles. Sort of the way history's written by winners.
1. Calvinism is true and my doctrine is false.
2. My doctrine is false and Calvinism of true.
3. Both Calvinism and my doctrine is false.
Or both you and your Calvinist counterparts have stumbled on different ends of the same story and have your understandings both right and wrong to a greater or lesser degree. Hammers.
I find this subject interesting for a few reasons: One, I was brought up in and spent most of my life as a Calvinist--or a Christian who believed in TULIP; whatever--and it's a subject that hits on a personal level. For another, the concepts of free will, fate, and our role in the universe are all remarkable and remain of interest. Calvinism speaks to an inexorable destiny you can't ultimately fight; virtually all other Christian belief systems to one extent or another disagree, some strongly, others more diffidently, with some even claiming the almighty himself does not know all things pertaining to the future.
Is there an underlying fate woven into our lives that's inexplicable or are we "free" to operate as agents? Great stuff. Even (or especially) from a secular perspective. I popped in this sidebar in case you or someone naturally asks: "So what's this [INSERT PEJORATIVE] doing mucking around on this thread, anyway?"
There is no fourth option. It is not a matter of opinion. One of us is right or both of us are wrong - period.
See above. Is it a dessert? Is it a floor topping? No--you're both right.:sinapisN:
Which is precisely what he should have done and probably would have done had he not been an Augustinian monk who was so convinced that God is incapable of any change whatsoever!
I'm fairly happy he came along and at least broke up the mother church. Big victory for free thinkers everywhere.
Calvinist reject reason itself in favor of their doctrines! How, oh how do you propose such a critique might take place?
Again, a matter of opinion.
I honestly had no idea.
Ah. Sorry you're late to the party--we had balloons and everything.:juggle:
I couldn't tell the difference between your arguments and those of your typical Calvinist.
Hey, hey: I wasn't a "typical" five-pointer, I was an exceptional one.:chuckle:
Your rejection of "Christianity" was a rejection of Calvinism - not the same thing.
Sorry, that's plain wrong.