Additionally, I guess that you aren't accustomed to having your positions challenged, your analyses disputed. As an officer in the Army, I had the same experience within the group of troops I supervised. There was a deference to me because of a rank difference. It is a heady thing.
I do think trite is a condescending, ridiculing word. Your own sense of the language tells you the same....bygones be bygones.
I have given my life to Christ. From the moment I was saved through the day I was called to preach the gospel through years of seminary, pastoring, ministering to American soldiers around the world to include on battlefields where many died, on to this pastorate I now hold in retirement I have testified to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ who is MY Lord forever, His name be praised.
I have placed my case with Him. His Spirit testifies with my spirit that I am a child of God. No one will snatch me out of His hand. Neither tribulation, nor distress, nor famine....nor anything in all creation.
Gosh, I even entertain the possibility that a few RCs are saved.
But I definitely do read the Lord Jesus as warning us that most professing Christians will wind up in hell. So, the awful inconsistencies which I see in RCism do not surprise me. In the same way, the squirrely things I see in Arminian congregations don't surprise me. Satan is dangerous. He is ordained to be more dangerous than spiritual fools realize.
Even Protestantism is not a strictly safe refuge.
I default to charity toward Arminians as brethren whenever they allow me to do so. Most of the time, I regard them as Christians in spite of their disagreements with me. But some Arminians give no meaningful evidence of knowing the Lord. And in some situations, I am not under obligation to accept their testimony.
Inasmuch as I think the Calvinistic perspective is correct, it is all the more important to offer a pretty stern warning against the rather RABID Arminianism which we see in our day. Whether folks hear or forbear is irrelevant. I have a job to do.
I didn't ask for this job, but my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I frankly think that the Reformation has been essentially REVERSED. And I don't regard this mess as merely a disparagement of the God of the Bible (although it is that!). I fear that Satan is sealing people in their religious doom. I think rabid Arminianism is a conspicuously false gospel. There is some room for confusion short of damning error, for various interesting reasons, but I regard the rabid Arminian as not merely confused, but a rank heretic.
Now, the degree of rabidity which a sinner displays in an error may be useful in making working decisions as to how to interact with a given person in the face of a controversy. But sometimes we Calvinists just have to continually lay out what we believe to be the truth and urge professing Christians to get as far away from the Arminian error as possible.
This doesn't win us a lot of friends even if we Calvinists try to be charitable, reasonable, and even winsome in our approach. The problem is, the errors inherent in Arminianism are so monumental, so dangerous, that we can't just be chatty and polite. We can't be just winsome. We have to be clear. We have to be earnest.
Sometimes we Calvinists even have to make examples of fools on this forum. The Scriptures declare that there must always be controversies in order that those who are approved of God might be made manifest. We sometimes build upon areas of agreement, but sometimes we feel that it is important to present our differences just as sharply as possible.
So, when people refuse to deal honestly and soberly with texts such as 1 Corinthians 2:14, we do dare to point this out. When they give smarmy,inadequate interpretations of Proverbs 16:33, we do dare to point this out. When our corrections offend spiritual brats--and corrections quite ordinarily do offend proud Arminians, despite our reasonableness, even civility--we sometimes do point out to lurkers what is going on. The poor Arminian is making our case for us.
In your situation, I perceive that you are more reasonable, more thoughtful than most Wesleyan-Arminians. And because I believe our Lord is the Lord of human means in situations such as ours, I am not inclined to jump down your throat in doctrinal disagreements.
On the other hand, I do regard Arminianism as much more dangerous than you currently think it is. If you ever get into my spiritual groove, you will see exactly what I mean. If you do not get into my groove, you will never see what I mean.
It therefore behooves you to figure out whether I am correct. This is true even if I dare to strain our FR relationship by admitting that I think your interpretations of some key texts are trite.
Gosh, that's the only word I could come up with. I am not especially surprised that you have turned it around to complain that I am being only condescending, that I am ridiculing you. What you have not yet considered is the possibility that I am correct. That could make all the difference in the world. It could even mean that I am not being condescending or trying to ridicule you. It could mean that I am trying to help you.
If I did not confront you for holding what I believe is a trite position, I would be derelict in my own responsibilites. I am under a serious burden to urge you to show a deeper appreciation for what the Word of God is saying. You are not as far from the Calvinistic position as are some of the folks on this forum--and I do regard you as a Christian--but you are still missing some mature points of doctrine. You are wading in the shallows and refusing to swim with us Calvinists.
So, I am asking you to abandon your presuppositions. I am asking you to consider the predestinarian possibility that you have been poorly taught.
As a matter of fact, I am urging you to abandon Methodism. The fact that this is (essentially) impossibly difficult for you as a Methodist pastor is irrelevant. I am asking you to quit revering John Wesley at all in this controversy. He didn't know what he was talking about.
If you want to continue in Methodism, switch to the British form. Whitefield was correct. (British Methodists are different in this regard. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a British Methodist, i.e., a thoroughgoing Calvinist.)