Replies

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?

Calvinism isn't Fatalism. Calvinism opposes Fatalism. Though there are fatalists that call themselves Calvinists, Calvinists reject their position out of hand. In fact, many Calvinists consider Fatalistic Predestinarians to be heretical.

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.

The Calvinist teaching our Sunday School class - good guy, BTW, with bad doctrine - told me we don’t sneeze unless God willed for us to sneeze from before Creation! That sounds pretty deterministic to me.

Personally, I find it silly to say that God irresistibly saves the elect, but that they choose him freely, and the unelect have been chosen for damnation, but they choose it on their own. That is a Calvinist who is ashamed of his own doctrine, and trying to hide it - IMHO.

What does this mean? Seriously, I'm confused.

You claim that salvation is monergistic yet you claim that you are saved by grace through faith

So either salvation is entirely monergistic, which means that you are saved by virtue of election and election alone or there is an element to salvation that the person must do in order to be saved, i.e, repent, believe, exercise saving faith...

Unless the faith is God's faith, the repentance is God's repentance and the belief is God's belief, then there is a measure of synergism involved and therefore either election or salvation is conditional or you are preaching fatalistic determinism. You may not believe that you believe in Fatalistic Determinism, but by your construct you have created a theological condition whereby your salvation (or your damnation) are both determined wholly and totally by God's predetermined declaration and his unchangeable divine order and plan.

I hear you screaming "Oh, but that is a Hypercalvinistic heresy, which I don't believe." Ok, if you don't believe it, then tell me, is there anything you could have done in your life to change your elect status?

How is that not Fatalistic Determinism?

Explain that to me so that it makes sense. I've been here for 10 years and nobody yet has given me a satisfactory answer to that dilemma. You want to give it a stab, or do you just want to complain that I don't understand it so you are going to cry "Strawman! Strawman!" and pretend the contradiction does not exist?

Defend your position. Prove to me that divine election as you understand it is not fatalistic determinism. And if it is not fatalistic determinism, then show me how it is not theological synergism?

Take your time. I've been waiting 10 years for the answer, I can wait a while longer (God willing).