Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

That's good news brother. I am happy for all of you!

 

Again, this tread is not about your personal issues with my theology.

 

Rhetoric about what you don't agree with about my doctrine is not an answer to the simple question I presented. Re-read post #64 if this is not clear.

 

You're correct, it's been about yours against others.

But continue leaning your thoughts on a different subject as if you're on track with the OP, and it will keep you from facing facts. It's a rather simplistic scheme you're being lead to follow to keeping you from facing truth.

 

Do you have anything to add to the discussion concerning the OP or question #64 which directly addresses the OP? Again, the topic is not about your personal issues with me or my theology.

 

Tell you what, I'll add more as soon as you admit your name-calling is a work of the flesh and unnecessary, and, is a behavior you practice on here often, and when you apologize for resorting to these things. For you to do so would be to "man-up."

Other than that, the distinguishing factor you will get is that your theology differs little from Copelands, that is, that God is unable, and only enabled when man acts.

Thus Calvinism would be deemed "Sovereign Grace" and arminianism "Freewill Empowerment" the latter being a fallacy.

 

Well, you all know what they say when the opponents have nothing to add but Ad Hominem and rhetorical attacks not concerned with premise.

My job here is done.

 

Says the one levelling name calling on and against others. :wavey:

 

Greektim's post was #34
This one is #90.

Best I can tell we've had 56 posts up since then, and not one of them addressed the OP since Greektim did.

BTW, I like monergism. Maybe we can combine your suggestion with mine (DoG) and describe us Calvinists as Monergist DoGs.

Maybe our Non-Cal friends can be Synergist Freewillies.

 

My point exactly. I'm not interested in any of your or anyone elses personal issues against me, this is a debate forum and I have presented a claim, lets address the issues and avoid (Fallacious Ad Hominem accusations such as I have posted in the flesh and whatknot because of the method I used to draw your attention to a title statement using big letters) I made a valid point when I compared my title statement to the title statement that you offered which I would contest as not being true. I contend what the oposition presented was an unfair comparison used as a rhetorical device to avoid admitting that the title I presented was not only accurate but more to the point; therefore more truthful and thereby more honest than calling ones doctrine the “THE” Doctrine of Grace” which is a subjectively stated title as there are differences in opinion about the means of grace. That is my claim.

If my title statement is not truthfully reflecting your position then it should be easy for you to tell me what you consider not to be true about it and my contention that is more accurate than simply calling one’s doctrine “THE Doctrine of Grace” will be withdrawn. Back to the subject of the premise:

Simple question:

1) How does the title of “Doctrine of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace” not accurately or truthfully (same thing) reflect the view the of the OP’s doctrine?

Again, this is not about anyone’s personal issues with me or conflicts one has with the other’s doctrine. It is a matter of if the title I presented is a not only accurate, but more accurate description of the doctrines of grace that the opposition preaches, or not?

 

Truth matters to me. You continue to avoid the issues and seem to think revealing your true position in your title would be a divisive thing to do. I agree, people would and do flee from the "truth" of your doctrine. It is no wonder to me that you can't or refuse to answer the simple question I presented in regards to the truth of your position.

I like mine better.

 

Oh, and are you kidding me, not hardly, I repeatedly asked my opponents to address the issues and not me. Trying to justify yours and others actions because of me using big letters is rediculus and the only reason I used them was because you said you might of missed any title suggestions and it was done in humor. But you and others certainly missed the part that this is "supposed" to be a debate board and apparently many here do not no how to get past street arguments.

 

No, I know you did not answer the questions with anything other than rhetorical devises disigned to avoid them.

Enough said, I tire of the chase.

 

Aw, looks like "monergism" is already taken:

From the Orthodox Church in America website:

Colin J. D. Greene notes that monergism and monotheletism were condemned as heretical at the Third Council of Constantinople [Sixth Ecumenical Council].

 

Your language more often than not, does not seem to match God's declarations of truth in scripture. like this;

In scripture God sets His love on His elect people. In love He draws them. You make it sound distorted sometimes.....not just you...but all of Team Jihad who call God names that they should not[ author of sin,monster,respector of persons,etc.]
All the biblical revelation has a divine plan and purpose because it is God given....not man made. It is sin to attempt to speak against or diminish what God has purposed to do...as He always does right.
Calvinism seeks to trust in this God given revelation,knowing Him to be holy ,just, and good.