[jude24]

I don't believe I've ever seen anyone stating there is a certain level of insecurity with Catholics to state Catholicism is the true Church.

Apparently we've never met. I'm Jude24, the friendly neighborhood magesterial Protestant who is comfortable with the whole of Church History (it is, after all, my own history) including Chrystostom, Augustine, and Aquinas, but rejects the claim Rome has to universality. (What about the Orthodox?) And I've been explicit on that point.

There are only the two views; the Orthodox (synergism) and the Reformers (monergism). The rest are confused.

Nothing like setting up a self-serving dichotomy and making that your standard of orthodox doctrine. It's not as though the Calvinists, alleged monergists that they are, believe that humans are completely automata. To some extent we must cooperate in the work of grace just by virtue of being free agents.

One of us (synergist or monergist) is holding heretical views and the other correct doctrine.

And another drive-by false dictotomy. Even granting your synergist/monergist dictomy (which I do not), it is quite posssible - indeed, quite likely that both are wrong. Further, "wrong" does not equate to "heretical." "Heretical" is a term of art referring to a denial of a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Given the fact that almost every orthodox Christian denomination rejects "monergism," even if they are wrong to do so, clearly it cannot be "heretical." The Catholics, the Orthodox, the Wesleyans, the Pentacostals, some Baptists, the Plymouth Brethren - all these churches reject "monergism." Now, I have varying disagreements with all of these denomination - some quite severe - but I can't call a single one of them "heretical." Nor can you.

Using frantic rhetoric like "heretical" and setting up strawmen false dichotomies destroys the grounds from which you debate. It gives you no credibility outside of your chorus of yes-men, but leads any fair-minded observer to wonder if you really understand what you're talking about or if you're just covering your own insecurities.

(For the moderator's sake: I'm trying to thread a fine line between a correction and a personal attack. Permission for a little leeway.)

[HarleyD]

Nothing like setting up a self-serving dichotomy and making that your standard of orthodox doctrine....To some extent we must cooperate in the work of grace just by virtue of being free agents.

While I have not had the blessedness of being a Calvinist for nearly as long as you have, I do understand the subtle differences between Rome's view of man's cooperation in grace and the Reformation's view. It was a distinction I immediately grasp upon reading the various views. You would not say this was a self-serving dichotomy if you truly understood the distinction between the two.

"... Even granting your synergist/monergist dictomy (which I do not)

My case in point. A Reformer would not make such a statement.

Using frantic rhetoric like "heretical" and setting up strawmen false dichotomies destroys the grounds from which you debate.

Heretical is defined as: Characterized by, revealing, or approaching departure from established beliefs or standards. I don't believe that using the term meaning "departure from established beliefs" is in any way "frantic rhetoric". Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants are free to call me a heretic since I have departed from their established beliefs. It becomes who has departed and what benchmark do you want to set for the departure.

Using frantic rhetoric like "heretical" and setting up strawmen false dichotomies destroys the grounds from which you debate. It gives you no credibility outside of your chorus of yes-men, but leads any fair-minded observer to wonder if you really understand what you're talking about

You might have noticed there are precious few chorus of "yes" men here and fewer still in my Arminian Southern Baptist church. Quite frankly I'm not interested in what others think about me. I research all my material before posting and, as some here know, I'll read any view offered. If I'm wrong I'll print a retraction.

That being said, while I appreciated our brethren and their viewpoints, their position with regards to fundamental doctrines such as election, grace, predestination, etc is wrong. I would be remiss NOT to point this out. If you understood the basic principle of election you would agree.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Calvinists are "alleged monergists"?

LOL. Only to a universalist like yourself.