No, I haven't just named authors; I've said what books and parts of books to look at.

"I'm not at your beck and call" you say. Very well, I never said you were. It was YOU who was huffing and puffing about how you were going to call in the next day and never did, and when you finally did show back up, it was just to pick at words, having realized you had no argument.

Your M.O., like I said, is always the same: challenge people with names of people you haven't read, as if you had read them, and when your bluff gets called, you have nothing.

All I have ever argued is that Dort rigidified doctrines, and, unfortunately became something people run with as a summation of Calvinism.

I argued that:

(1) TD is not what a lot of people think it is, but is rather the historic doctrine (going back to Augustine, running through folks like Anselm, coming out in Calvin) that there is no part of us which is not tainted (i.e. uncorrupt). You agree with this.

(2) A lot of people think the Canons of Dort just is Calvinism (i.e. is a summation of the man). You're a retard if you don't agree with this.

(3) The soul of Calvinism is Calvin's pursual of and improvement of an Augustinian method of theology.

(4) All of these things I gave textual references for, and you give NONE WHATSOEVER FOR A SINGE ONE OF THE CLAIMS YOU MAKE

(5) You accused me of not knowing what was talking about with Luther's Bondage (a book you obviously have not read any more than your lie about reading all the tens of thousands of pages of Calvin you claim to have read), and I explained myself on that and you were silent.

(4) You disappeared for awhile, only to reappear to make pathetic pokes at this or that word of mine, hoping in your desperation to find a contradiction, STILL NOT ANSWERING A SINGLE ARGUMENT I EVER MADE

Yes I've read the original works of these thinkers--as far as Augustine, the Confessions, the Commentary on Genesis, the De Trinitate, and his dialogue on free will. As far as Anselm, the Cur Deus Homo, the three dialogues on Truth, Freedom, and the Devil, the de Concordia, and the de Incarnatione.

Once again, I brought arguments and you didn't answer, instead choosing to lyingly twist words (although this time I see you don't want to bring up any quptes from me, since you know you're off).

As for "newly" bringing up the likes of erasmus, anselm and other thinkers, you are straight-up lying--I've always been speaking of the augustinian tradition and making use of such thinkers as Annslem et al. And furthermore, I never criticized people for making use of the historic augustinian tradition (NO ONE HAS DONE SO!!!) but for sham citings of present-day commentators, which is all you know.

I never said the divines at Dort intended for TULIP to stand for Calvinism (though they DID rigidify those doctrines and did, in essence, allow the Remonstrants to set the agenda by crafting TULIP as a response. I explained that by Dort Calvinism I meant the juvenile understanding many people these days have that the five points are a summation of Calvinism. By Dort partisans I always meant and still mean those people people who ignorantly and staunchly take up TULIP and call themselves 'Calvinists' when they are just partisans who want to associate themselves with something and over-react against free-willers.

Have you ever read Luther's Bondage? Luther (however much he argues about words) doesn't seem to realize that he for the most part agrees with the position of Erasmus that the will in the strictest sense is 'free' in that it is in no way extrinsically restrained, yet nonetheless bound through inability, though still blameably so due to being technically free--so, yes, Luther holds the two in a sort of compatibilist tension, as all Augustinians do.

The Augustinian tradition has always held freedom and necessity in tension, and has always seen the two as in some way--see Augustine's dialogue on Free Will, Anselm's Cur Deus Homo (and de concordia), Luther's Bondage, and book I of Calvin's Institutes--all of which hold to a general position of compatibilism between free will and predestination.

Dusty Bin--
"For the lazy who don't want to bother reading the whole, just do a word search on "freewill".

As for Luther... has he ever read Luther's Bondage of the Will .. the clue is in the title !! "

I knew you were a proof texter, and here you are preaching research by proof text as a method.

I'm a Calvinist, but I hereby request a special dispensation not to be terrorized .

Furthermore, as you say, "I am sure I'm wrong on some points of theology." That's a really commendable attitude to have, I think. I had a good theology professor who used to say (as many good theology profs do) that truth be told, WE ALL have our personal heresies we aren't even aware of, try though we might to have a right account on all doctrinal questions--we're human and all of us must certainly have things we have a wrong-headed understanding of (the Reformers included). I have every reason to expect that when I meet my Lord I will find I've dreadfully misunderstood this thing or that.

It is good and indeed important to see various ways in which people have interpreted the Bible, but I never have understood any of them to be anything but interpreters--and indeed I disagree with Calvin and the Reformed tradition in terms of certain points of Covenantal Theology (e.g. pedobaptism).

You've got me utterly and completely wrong, friend. I don't know where you would have gotten that from at all. I am not in any way "infatuated with the reformed writers." I too think it is a HUGE problem that people stop with this Reformation thinker or that one as if a latter-day commentator is the end-all be-all of the Gospel. The irony is, so many people treat various Reformers as if they were the final say, when the the Reformers' mentality themselves was, so to speak "don't look at me--look at the SCRIPTURES." Luther, for instance, hated the idea of a "Lutheran" Church (preferring the name "evangelisch."

I don't know if you were just waanting to argue or not, but you apparently didn't read the original post, or the follow-up. Either that or you're just playing word games. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WORLD!!! I wasn't talking about Christians, and if you had read the post, you'd see I was talking about how Christians by definition DO NOT BELONG to the world I was describing.

And no that isn't what antinomian means; I think you've been hearing people throw the word around incorrectly or something. An antinomian is by definition "anti" + "nomos"--preceisely the opposite of one who argues the law is necessary.

I'll make the point again. It's very simple, but I don't know whether you'll read it anymore than you read the last ones. The point is this: