Angela,
I never said Reformed people believe any particular thing at all.
I said ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT was not a sound argument.
That is all.
I said ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT has INHERENT PRESUPPOSITIONS... and logically, if you REMOVE those presuppositions, that argument simply falls apart under it's own weight.
The PROOF that argument has presuppositions, is that if you remove the presuppositions, and insert the real arminian view... the argument falls by it's own weight.
This is the proof the argument contains presuppositions.
Now Angela, my dear friend, I have no idea what you're going on about.
I didn't ascribe some horrible condition of ignorance and presupposition to my Calvinist brothers.
I simple said ONE ARGUMENT is a not a good argument.
If you want to debate that Calvinism is the correct position, you may very well win that debate.
But if you want to debate whether this one particular argument is sound... I don't think that's going to work.
I get tired of hearing these straw man arguments, from both sides, and so I tried to explain how this argument is unsound.
This does nothing to disprove, or even attack, the entire Calvinist position.
I pointed out ONE ARGUMENT was not a good argument.
I did nothing more, and nothing less.
: )
I never said Reformed people believe any particular thing at all.
I said ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT was not a sound argument.
That is all.
I said ONE PARTICULAR ARGUMENT has INHERENT PRESUPPOSITIONS... and logically, if you REMOVE those presuppositions, that argument simply falls apart under it's own weight.
The PROOF that argument has presuppositions, is that if you remove the presuppositions, and insert the real arminian view... the argument falls by it's own weight.
This is the proof the argument contains presuppositions.
Now Angela, my dear friend, I have no idea what you're going on about.
I didn't ascribe some horrible condition of ignorance and presupposition to my Calvinist brothers.
I simple said ONE ARGUMENT is a not a good argument.
If you want to debate that Calvinism is the correct position, you may very well win that debate.
But if you want to debate whether this one particular argument is sound... I don't think that's going to work.
I get tired of hearing these straw man arguments, from both sides, and so I tried to explain how this argument is unsound.
This does nothing to disprove, or even attack, the entire Calvinist position.
I pointed out ONE ARGUMENT was not a good argument.
I did nothing more, and nothing less.
: )
I apologize for my last line. I wanted to make it clear, that I don't think there is anyone who believes your ONE argument
I do not know a single person that believes that God is impotent, to plan, lead direct or foresee the salvation process from any camp- not Arminian, nor Reformed nor in between.
I repeat, I know of no one in any camp, Arminianism, Reformed and "in between" who think anyone else believes God is impotent, or that Arminians believe that.
You have created a ridiculous straw man. I personally don't think your straw man is even made of straw, but basically, it is made of nothing! I am not attacking Arminians, but rather defending them from this argument made of nothing. I am defending everyone else you attacked who is not specifically Arminian, who you say believe this about Arminians.
Perhaps next time, if you want to present ONE ARGUMENT then make it one that is at least based on a little bit of truth. Refuting nothing is still nothing!
Once again, instead of these red herring arguments, try and stick to the topic of the thread.
The topic is:
MONERGISM vs. SYNERGISM