Perseverance of the Saints must be rejeceted

[Atreyu]

So what you are saying is I wrote lies about Calvinism? I read what the ‘opposition’ had to say and I refuted it. Is there a problem here somewhere??

You admitted to not reading the link that Syele posted, simply because it was written by Calvin. Here is the entirety of your “refutation”:

You’re kidding me right? I would never read anything from that man Calvin if my life depended on it.
Calvinism is a system of false doctrine that is taught in most Evangelical denominations.
None are taught in the bible. All 5 points must be accepted or rejected as a unit. Refute any one element and the whole system fails. (Domino Effect). The “Sinners Prayer” is NOT in the bible and won’t save you. It to is a false doctrine that developed from Calvinism and was first practiced less than 50 years ago.
Did you know that before Calvin became a Calvinist, he was a Lutheran? Luther and Calvin contradicted themselves b/c they claimed to use the bible only, then went on to write creed’s in addition to the bible.

2 points, 3 points, 5 points…500 points…really ridiculous if you ask me.

That doesn’t read like much of a refutation to me. It reads like so much hot air, delivered in a belligerent, disrespectful and uncaring manner.

I don’t really want to spend any more time on this, but I want you to seriously consider something. I want you to think about Saint Thomas Aquinas, and how he would have dealt with this situation. Do you think he would reject anything written by Calvin and expect to have “refuted” him? Or would he have carefully examined what Calvin had to say, and then refuted him with sound doctrine?

The latter is the goal of the apologist, in my opinion.

 

[Righteousone]

You admitted to not reading the link that Syele posted, simply because it was written by Calvin. Here is the entirety of your “refutation”:

That doesn’t read like much of a refutation to me. It reads like so much hot air, delivered in a belligerent, disrespectful and uncaring manner.

I don’t really want to spend any more time on this, but I want you to seriously consider something. I want you to think about Saint Thomas Aquinas, and how he would have dealt with this situation. Do you think he would reject anything written by Calvin and expect to have “refuted” him? Or would he have carefully examined what Calvin had to say, and then refuted him with sound doctrine?

The latter is the goal of the apologist, in my opinion.

That’s just it, it is YOUR opinion. St. Thomas Aquinas would in fact reject anything that had to do with bashing of his church, which meant bashing Christ hemself. And who knows? Certainly not you.

 

[Syele]

Yes it is my opinion, and it was a suggestion only. However, I find it difficult to understand how a person could know anything about something while refusing to actually read about it. I would suggest that the apologist who wants to be successful would always be willing to read what the opposition writes. A refusal to learn about the opposition shows a complete lack of respect for the opposition. Even if you win the argument, if you do not show respect and charity then your arguments will fall on deaf ears.

:clapping: