Calvin vs Arminius

JimKnox said:
(So glad I ignored that woman)

Monergism is heresy. Your FIRST attack was based on that heresy according to your own words.

And then from that post to this, you pretend to have claimed the high ground.

Pftt!
Click to expand...
Could we have your definition of heresy? And after defining it could you explain how monergism fits the definition?
 
Prov. 26:4

I take it you have abandoned your argument in the original post, whatever it was supposed to be. Shall I lock the thread, since it serves no further purpose?
 
If someone simultaneously declares many of a forum's members to be heretics, and gets hurt that "certain fellows of the baser sort chose discord instead," he is the very model of a double-minded man.

You gotta laugh.
 
Ransom said:
Prov. 26:4

I take it you have abandoned your argument in the original post, whatever it was supposed to be. Shall I lock the thread, since it serves no further purpose?
Click to expand...
Do what thou wilt.
Unless God has decreed otherwise.
😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆
 
Ransom said:
If someone simultaneously declares many of a forum's members to be heretics, and gets hurt that "certain fellows of the baser sort chose discord instead," he is the very model of a double-minded man.

You gotta laugh.
Click to expand...
Twisting like a snake: same as Calvin the heretic burner.
 
Jim, you continue to throw out the term heretic and heresy. Are you at least going to do the intellectually honest thing and define the term? Otherwise it appears you are just engaging in ad hominem arguments equivalent to “you’re just a great big poopy head”.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Jim, you continue to throw out the term heretic and heresy. Are you at least going to do the intellectually honest thing and define the term? Otherwise it appears you are just engaging in ad hominem arguments equivalent to “you’re just a great big poopy head”.
Click to expand...
indeed... ... like calling someone a "looney leftist"..... a label he has tagged both me
and ransom with so far.. .... and for little more than disagreeing with him, it seems....

. ... ..in another thread he labelled me a racist.... then changed it to "ray cyst" before
offering a vile description to match his non-clever spelling... ....

a misuse of the label 'heretic"... applied where it doesn;t belong... could just as easily
be confused with "hairy tick"... ..i don;t have a description of a "hairy tick".. but i did
find a picture i made years ago of what i imagined one could look like......


ixodidashirsutious.webp


ixodidas hirsutious.... ....aka.... hairy tick...

(my somewhat scientific contribution to the discussion.... i didn;t reply directly to
jim knox with this as apparently he has me on ignore.... so it would have been futile
to do so....... ...and....i must add...i offer sincerest apologies to any real scientist
in attendance who might be offended by my misuse of binomial nomenclature) ;)
 
Last edited:
aleshanee said:
indeed... ... like calling someone a "looney leftist"..... a label he has tagged both me
and ransom with so far.. .... and for little more than disagreeing with him, it seems....

. ... ..in another thread he labelled me a racist.... then changed it to "ray cyst" before
offering a vile description to match his non-clever spelling... ....

a misuse of the label 'heretic"... applied where it doesn;t belong... could just as easily
be confused with "hairy tick"... ..i don;t have a description of a "hairy tick".. but i did
find a picture i made years ago of what i imagined one could look like......

View attachment 9068
ixodidas hirsutious.... ....aka.... hairy tick...

(my somewhat scientific contribution to the discussion.... i didn;t reply directly to
jim knox with this as apparently he has me on ignore.... so it would have been futile
to do so....... ...and....i must add...i offer sincerest apologies to any real scientist
in attendance who might be offended by my misuse of binomial nomenclature) ;)
Click to expand...
Yep, name calling just exposes the weakness of the argument, and the one arguing.
 
subllibrm said:
That's what I am thankful for most here. No one has called me names in response to my posts. 😜
Click to expand...
i know..... and you haven;t accused us of anything either... nor implied we sold our souls ...or had evil motives for voting republican... .:).. .. unity and harmony on a christian forum is a wonderful thing isn;t it?.... :cool:
 
ALAYMAN said:
Jim, you continue to throw out the term heretic and heresy. Are you at least going to do the intellectually honest thing and define the term? Otherwise it appears you are just engaging in ad hominem arguments equivalent to “you’re just a great big poopy head”.
Click to expand...
Heresy:
A belief that contradicts the orthodox tenets of a religion.
Calvinism is heresy in that:
It declares God is the author and originator of sin/evil. This is the logical conclusion based on Calvinism's adamant claim that God has decreed all things from the beginning. Man is decreed by God to fall yet God holds him accountable for sin that he cannot help because he is born into sin.
This is the wickedness ascribed to God by Calvinists.
Calvinism is Augustinian Determinism; it is not Christian and it relies on twisting Scripture, redefining terms and moving the goalposts.
 
JimKnox said:
Allowed and decreed are two very different things.
Don't go changing the vocabulary to prop up a false narrative.
Click to expand...
No, they are not two very different things. You can make distinction between active and passive decrees but they are both decrees nonetheless.

God actively decreed his creation (spoke the world into existence). God actively decreed that the Tree of Knowledge be planted in the Garden of Eden and passively decreed (allowed) that Adam would disobey him and would partake of this fruit. Adam partook of his own free will but God planted the tree there knowing that he would. You therefore have to answer why would God allow such a thing?

Nothing happens of which God is not aware and nothing happens of which God does not allow. These are cold, hard facts.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
No, they are not two very different things. You can make distinction between active and passive decrees but they are both decrees nonetheless.

God actively decreed his creation (spoke the world into existence). God actively decreed that the Tree of Knowledge be planted in the Garden of Eden and passively decreed (allowed) that Adam would disobey him and would partake of this fruit. Adam partook of his own free will but God planted the tree there knowing that he would. You therefore have to answer why would God allow such a thing?

Nothing happens of which God is not aware and nothing happens of which God does not allow. These are cold, hard facts.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "passive decree".
It is a modern philosophical invention that Calvinists attempt to avoid the direct statement of Calvin himself, to wit:
..." God ...determined whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction".

The Westminster Confession says God "freely and unchangeable ORDAINED whatsoever comes to pass". By definition and logically that would include sin, unbelief and damnation.

"Passive decree" contradicts Theological Determinism which Calvinists themselves affirm. If every event is predetermined then the damnation of the reprobate is not 'passively allowed' it is actively determined.

Calvinism says the reprobate CANNOT believe unless God gives irresistible grace. Withholding that grace is therefore an ACTIVE determination of their damnation.

😪😪
(Claiming God decreed for Adam to sin is identical to Mormon doctrine that the Fall MUST happen so that redemption may come)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top