Arrogance is, among other things, the affectation of a pretence of competence in an area where one is, in fact, unlearned, unschooled, and incompetent.
Your silly attempts to "stand in judgment" of my logic thus far fits that bill.
All that debate training has done you no good. It seems to have scrambled your brains.
Says the fry-cook to the chef.
As I have said -- you are not even schooled in the discipline, and not competent to judge.
I said, "You are confusing miracles with grace to repent". Your so-called "logical analysis" included this gem: To exclude "miracles" from the definition of "grace" is as glaring a definitional error as you could possibly make. Your deplorable logic has totally failed you, turning "confusing" into "exclude" and dropping the "repent" from "grace to repent". Then you pretend that is what I said, and think no one will notice your clumsy deception.
Au contraire. One cannot "confuse" Apples with Fruit, because Apples are Fruit. To regard Apples as Fruit, is to apprehend their nature correctly.
Your statement that I "confused miracles with grace" is as nonsensical as saying "You confuse apples with fruit".
Nor does it serve you to promulgate the blatant lie that I "dropped the "repent" from "grace to repent"". This falsehood will not stand; I specifically addressed the point: "when effected for the purpose of provoking repentance, they are "graces to repentance" (for they are a Grace which is being effected for the purpose of provoking repentance)." A Grace to Repentance is a performance of Grace intended to effect the provision of conditions for, and provoke the consummation of, Repentance in the object of the Grace. Thus, where miracles (which are a Grace) are performed for the purpose of provision for and provocation of Repentance, they are Graces to Repentance.
Your invented pedantic distinction was an obvious fraud. I let it go when you first raised it; but continue to behave arrogantly and petulantly, and I will continue to shame you with your fraud.
Since you know what I am getting at, Calvinist, you could suggest another wording if you thought one was necessary, but instead you make mincemeat of your own credibility, and embarrass yourself in front of everyone. Your choice.
No "other wording" was necessary. Your invented pedantic distinction was ridiculous on its face.
Ergo, I barbecued it.
And I gave you fair warning that I would do this if you persisted in putting on airs.
So, your backpeddling whining is just sour grapes. Suck it up.
Further rudeness does not help people think of you as a competent debater with logical skills of any sort.
You will recall that I offered you the opportunity, as I often do, to suggest another wording to better convey my meaning. You can also ask me to clarify the meaning of a phrase if you have not seen me use it before.
If instead you take oft-used phrases like "free will" and "grace to repent" and try to take them away from your opponent, redefining them to apply only to your agenda, as the socialists and islamists love to do with other phrases, you may think it is a good debating tactic, but it is a form of dishonesty, an obfuscation tactic, that cripples conversation instead of promoting clarity.
It lessens people's respect for you. Your choice.