No, but based on my former personal experience as an Arminian, I think pride drives the degree of adamance with which one argues a synergist defense. In extreme cases it leads to routine ad hominem. I used to delight in handing monergists their backside, but I after switching sides I came to realize they probably walked away sad for me (or worse) and I was errant in my appraisal. This idea that someone would intentionally set out to correct a huge bunch of other people with a demonstrably unwillingness to have one's own mistakes corrected is a sure sign of pride, especially when the correction hides behind words like, "
challenge."
Not me. However, I will say I was probably Calminian before I realized I was Calminian. I understood, accepted, and affirmed "T" (like a true Arminian) and parts of U, I, and P, and became more convinced of those their veracity as I studied the various arguments of both sides. Some of you may recall my openly identifying as Calminian and arguing with you fifteen years ago in CARM or observing my gradual change to the dark side
.
TULIP was also one of the subjects that also helped built my apprehension about extra-biblical sources because theologians, even noted theologians with accolade from all sides, either get TULIP wrong or poorly explain it. TULIP can, and should, be worded in a theo-centric way. ALWAYS. I had difficulty finding a way to articulate "T" theocentrically until recently when
@Arial posted an op that does so. The rest I've had down pat for awhile but a theocentric "T" alluded me. I do not know for sure, but I think it helps the synergist see at least the veracity of some of the points, even if not fully persuaded to any one of them or all five together. For several years I used the (more) common human-centric definitions. Once it is realized TULIP is about God, not Man, everything changes. A huge array of insights ensues and the possibility of building consensus increases. After all, who is going to disagree with the premise, the truth, God always accomplishes His purpose when He acts? The person dissenting from that has a bad Theology, not just a bad soteriology. A completely different conversation needs to be had on those occasions.
Divisions are almost always due to either a lack of exegesis (study) or a poor exegetical skillset. TULIP wasn't the first matter that prompted wariness about extra-biblical sources, it was Dispensational Premillennialism. And I say that as someone who had been in a "Christian" cult and someone who has been on a mission trip with other Christians and witnessed how poorly we can behave even when sharing a common theological orientation and a common goal. This is the chief problem in the Cal v Arm debate. It's why I post ops like this one
HERE. I'm in the midst of a conversation with CCAM former member JIM, who we all respect as an articulate Wesleyan, and he cannot shake his weak exegesis. I have yet to meet a synergist who does not take verses written
about the already saved and regenerate and apply them (wrongly) to the unsaved, unregenerate, sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer. The
ontological difference between a non-believer and a believer is incomprehensible to every synergist I've ever read, with every synergist with whom I have ever traded apologetics. They believe a person can change from unbelief to belief in a dead state. The deadness, the depravity gets minimized or denied (both are sure ways to tell the non-Arm synergist from the Arm synergist). That's at the foundation of every non-Arm synergism.
That belief in the human ability, in my own ability, while dead in sin is pride.
And that is why a simple request to be shown and
explicit (not an inferred one) example of what they preach is always ignored. It doesn't just reveal the paucity of synergism; it confronts one's pride.
