I understand Calvinism more than you think. Frankly, because I am NOT a Calvinist, I think I can view it objectively whereas you, who are a Calvinist, cannot view it objectively. I find it interesting that rather than answer my questions you criticize the motive behind the question. That is an objective indication that you have no legitimate answers to the questions I have posed.
A type of Theological Fatalism, which is not Reformed theology.
If Calvinism is not Theological Fatalism, then it is synergistic. You guys claim that salvation is wholly monergistic and yet you then go on to argue for a position which is objectively as synergistic as Arminianism.
Maybe it is not "Theological Fatalism" in a strict sense. Maybe that is because underlying the idea of Theological Monergism is an incosistent acknowledgement of Theological Synergism (which you bury your head in the ground and refuse to recognize).
If you know so much about what Calvinism means, then you should have no problem addressing my questions and giving me logical and biblical responses to my challenges. Instead you just cry "Strawman! Strawman!" and run and hide.
Why don't you just answer my challenges. Either that or stand back and let someone who isn't afraid to answer my questions do it for you.
I find it interesting that rather than answer my questions you criticize the motive behind the question.I'm not questioning your motive. I'm pointing out that you are not arguing against Calvinism. You are arguing against what you think Calvinism is, though you are not arguing against Calvinism.
That is an objective indication that you have no legitimate answers to the questions I have posed.There is no legitimate answers to illegitimate questions. I can't argue for the strengths of Theological Fatalism because I'm not a fatalist. So what answer am I supposed to give other than, "that's not Reformed?" Am I supposed to accept that what you are arguing is an acceptable criticism of Reformed Theology even though it is not addressing Reformed Theology? That would allow the question to be begged. It's poor argumentation.
If you know so much about what Calvinism means, then you should have no problem addressing my questions and giving me logical and biblical responses to my challenges. Instead you just cry "Strawman! Strawman!" and run and hide.Fine, I'll give a logical answer.
If Calvinism is not Theological Fatalism, then it is synergistic.That is a false dicotomy. Your argument is fallacious. Better?
Maybe that is because underlying the idea of Theological Monergism is an incosistent acknowledgement of Theological Synergism.What does this mean? Seriously, I'm confused. But, it may be a better argument and something I can legitimately address if explored.