Triablogue: Calvinism vs. Arminianism
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html
Labels: Calvinism vs Arminianism
posted by mark pierson at 2:20 PM
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Previous Posts
- One of My Blogosphere Hero's Adds to Our Growing ...
- Line Upon Line: The Evolution of Soteriological Re...
- Daniel's New Series
- Some Thoughts on Assurance
- Words Which The Holy Ghost Teacheth...
- A Work In Progress: Colin Maxwell Dictionary On Fr...
- Triablogue: A Dictionary of Arminian Terms
- Lou Martuneac on the GES' Contribution to the Lord...
- David's Senior Ball
- GES Heresy
20 Comments:
Once again when you go to this link you must scroll up. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Mark
June 08, 2008 2:25 PM
From the opening paragraph...
The admission of an anti-Calvinist - "He all but admits that there is no good argument against Calvinism that does not presuppose the falsity of key Calvinist tenants. He all but admits that the Calvinist can answer the strongest charge leveled against them by other Christians: the problem of evil."
===============
>"there is no good argument against Calvinism that does not presuppose the falsity of key Calvinist tenants."<
I think we have all seen that to be true. One MUST resort to mischaracterizing Calvinism in order to argue against it, else there are no arguments.
June 08, 2008 2:40 PM
That is why I frequently ask anti DoG folks to restate my position back to me. When they do it is ALWAYS litered with falsity, nothing more than a twisted and skewed restatement. Let's face it that's all they've got.
June 08, 2008 2:46 PM
Hi Mark,
You copied and pasted the address that takes you to the start of the "comments." If you click on the title of the post, then you'll have the correct link.
Notice the difference. Your link is this:
(1) http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html#comments
The one you want would be:
(2) http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html
(1) Has the word "comments" in it, (2) does not.
If you would like to change it you can copy and past the address in (2) into your blog entry.
(if any of the above appears cut off, don't worry, just copy what shows up and when you paste it the entire address will show up)
Best,
Paul
P.S. Thanks for the link.
June 08, 2008 3:00 PM
Thanks, Paul. I made the correction that you suggested.
Mark
June 08, 2008 3:31 PM
Antonio, so many times thou hast appeared in mine sitemeter these past few days. :-)
June 08, 2008 9:05 PM
Mark,
Good resource. Thanks for posting it.
Could it be Antonio is recovering from the battle scars his EFGT suffered at the Moor recently?
June 08, 2008 9:24 PM
Wayne, Antonio is single-handedly responsible for the the "boffow" numbers in my sitemeter these past couple days. Do you think that with all those vistits that he would at least stop in to say "hi"?
June 08, 2008 9:32 PM
Hi Antonio!
June 08, 2008 9:33 PM
I think it really funny the way you people hate each other's guts!
I am quite a frequent visitor to Liver and Onions.
Surely an almighty omnipotent heavenly father wouldn't have created a world in which there was such disharmony among those who consider themselves to be elected!
June 09, 2008 10:14 AM
And surely a lake of fire awaits the fool who says that there is no God.
June 09, 2008 10:40 AM
Maalie,
I must remind you that you have twice left debates when the weakness of your position were exposed. IOW, you tucked your tail and ran.........
Now you like to engage in hit and run slander. The liver and onion guy does seem to be full of hate. His theology is also wrong and I am glad that you are a frequent visitor there. He deserves it!
June 09, 2008 2:37 PM
>I must remind you that you have twice left debates
How can I leave a debate when there is none? You are bound by the doctrines of a 2000 year old book, full of errors, mistranslations and superstitions.
You are not free to debate, you have already been brainwashed.
June 09, 2008 4:50 PM
Hey!
Where's my greeting?
Lou
June 09, 2008 5:42 PM
However, I read your message and I won't be back. As I am unable to pray for you I simply wish you luck.
Jim
You are not a man of your words are you Jim?
June 09, 2008 10:27 PM
"Hey!
Where's my greeting?
Lou"
Greetings, Lou!
June 10, 2008 6:41 AM
Cristina, thanks, dear sister!
June 10, 2008 6:41 AM
Hi Mark,
You said:
That is why I frequently ask anti DoG folks to restate my position back to me. When they do it is ALWAYS litered with falsity, nothing more than a twisted and skewed restatement.
I could find a link to it if you don't remember... but one time you asked me to relate your position back to you and I did. You then told me I had it right. Remember?
June 16, 2008 12:27 PM
Yes, dear sister, I do remember that. However, in that same thread, after that, you went ahead to misrepresent DoG in a dialogue with Wayne - and I came back to share my disappointment because for a minute there you were showing so much promise only to revert back to your old arguments.
Do you also remember that part? My observation in this thread, therefore, stands.
June 16, 2008 1:14 PM
The anti DoG argument never advances. No mater how often they are set straight they ALWAYS revert back to their original arguments, never acknowledging that they have been corrected. That, in my books, amounts to dishonesty.
June 16, 2008 2:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home