No...
You made a specific accusation and now are using a generality to back up that specific accusation.
You've made the accusation against Mohler (et al); now, "show the body" or withdraw your accusation.
Uh you haven't disproven anything I have said. All you have done is made a claim. Just because you come along and claim I am wrong or I don't understand in no way compels me to entertain such inane behavior. When you post something of substance I will be glad to address it. Until then "you don't understand" is not substance.
Since man is accused of cooperating with God in salvation because of performing an action (believing) and that being deemed as synergism, then the act being performed of preaching the gospel so that men might be save must also be deemed as cooperating with God in the salvation of man. Whether man cooperates via believing or preaching does not change the fact that man is in cooperation with God for the salvation of man. Just because man cooperates with God for the salvation of another in no way negates the synergism that is going on. It is still a synergistic act that may result in the salvation of man.
When man responds by preaching the gospel or believing does that mean man gets credit for the salvation of his own life or others? Absolutely not. It's not even remotely possible. The credit for salvation can only go to Him who can give it. At the point of offering it the credit stops and no one can impose upon it. That is the point of no return.
We are all synergistic. Calvy;s can define it however they want to. It doesn't change the nature of what is going on.
Just because you come along and claim that you're right and do understand does not make it so.
You do not get to define words.
There are agreed-upon terms and you simply ignore them because you prefer your own definition because your own definition fits your own presuppositions better.
Or, perhaps it's because you want to do nothing more than eye-poke others.
Either way, it is you who are in the wrong.
I mean, really...
how many logical fallacies can you commit in one thread.
This has to be a new record for you.
It has been pointed out to you by several here how you are mistaken in your definition of "synergy," yet you refuse to listen.
Instead you insist on your re-definition when no one from "our" side agrees with it.
Of course, as you said, you don't have to engage with my posts.
But you're welping around rather than facing and discussing the issues like a man.
Now, I'm sure I'll receive a "I know you are but what am I" type of response claiming, but not demonstrating, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Try to back your claims up instead of playing the part of the hypocrite who always feigns yet never demonstrates understanding while you accuse others of doing the same.
Oh so you are making demands of me now...:Laugh. That’s funny! And again, you prove my point about you Calvinists. Let me ask you, are you an idealist? Sure sounds like you are.
Nothing gives him the right...he is just telling you that this is his observation, as wrong as that observation is.
Look he has is a pastor, a man that can and I’m sure does influence others. The most you can do is present your views via debate...even by conflict. But you will have to admit some will always agree with him and others will always champion your arguement.