Do you think it is a sin to lie?
If so, you should avoid doing so yourself.
I never gave my "thumbs up" concerning charismatics, I just mentioned that they are not all the same, and in spite of their errors, they are closer to the truth than what many Calvinists believe.
Second lie.
I denied being an Arminian because I am not one.
Again, as a "pastor" you should avoid telling lies about others, it isn't becoming.
Simple.
I don't read every post in every thread.
Though we might agree in most (some?) areas of theology, Luke2427 is admittedly quite a bit more abrasive than I am.
However, in this particular instance, it was Luke who made the statement accusing Robert and it was Robert who made the response that seemingly confirmed Luke's accusation.
So, the response was based on the situation, not the theology of the persons involved in the exchange.
Had the roles or situation been reversed, I would likely have made the same comments to Luke.
Even if one disagrees with the conclusions of Luther and Calvin (with specific reference to monergism), it is quite unfair to assert that either of them did not understand the Bible.
After all, soteriology isn't the only subfield of theology.
Also, we have to consider their contributions in context.
In the context of the works-salvation propagated by the RCC, Luther and Calvin represented a marked improvement in biblical interpretation.
That is, they actually attempted to interpret the Bible instead of relying on the magisterium and church tradition.
Even in reformation context, Calvin was probably the "best of the bunch."