I did misunderstand your comment on being synonymous, and I apologize. I should post when I’m tired.
Hey, no problem we all do that at times.
This is the problem when asking for proof. I could ask you to prove that goats become sheep, and you can’t do it, and so I can say that synergism isn’t biblical. Every argument you make I can just say that it doesn’t specifically say that. I’d have trouble “proving” the Trinity with that sort of discussion.
I don't feel I need to argue for goats becoming sheep. I think the idea is wrongly put that we change from one to another, just as much as I think it's wrong to say once a sheep always a sheep. I see it as a misuse of symbolic language. Because this is a symbolic language used in a specific moment, to a specific group of people. Another symbolic language might be using other words to describe followers and deniers of Christ, like tares and wheat. I don't see anyone be born a goat or sheep, because I don't believe the language of sheep/goats are meant to be used that way. What I can do is show from Scripture everyone can be a believer, and that should mean everyone can be a sheep, not become a sheep.
Trinity is a tricky matter, because I think there are Biblical arguments for and against. Here I lean to the history of Church and what has been agreed upon by 99% of all churches. If there was a 50-50 split among churches through out history, I'm not sure I would have been a trinitarian.
It's fully valid to use texts speaking about similar things to show what a another passage says (prove is probably a bad word). But we have to be ready to defend the position. There might be other explanations. In the end there are no proofs, only stronger and weaker arguments IMO.
I can say, however, that Christ said He dies for His sheep, and His sheep are those given to Him by His Father, and those who don’t believe aren’t His sheep. In fact, he gives that as a cause for disbelief. His sheep believe, and it’s because they are His sheep. It’s not that they become His sheep after they believe. I can say that He said He came for the lost sheep of Israel, and He has other sheep outside of Israel. All of this is specific. It’s never implied that He died for some unrealized group of people who will become sheep if they just believe. And He gave a parable about sheep and goats where He explains that you can tell they are sheep and goats by their behavior, not that they became sheep and goats because of their behavior.
It's a valid argument.
I can show from scripture that the heart of stone cannot/will not believe, and doesn’t even want to because the heart of stone hates God. We don’t just decided one day to be good and then God changes our heart. We can do nothing to please God while unregenerate, which includes believing the gospel. We must be born again.
I on the other hand can show from Scripture we need to repent for God to change our heart of stone. I can also show from Scripture repentance comes before the new birth. Are the verses in the Bible that can be seen the way you describe it. Sure! I just don't think there is only this one way to understand those verses, and I use other verses to support my position.
And this is all from scripture, not Augustine. If that’s the argument you want to make, then we really need to throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, since it wasn’t fully realized and understood for hundreds of years after Christ. But I don’t think that’s the way to go.
The difference is Calvinism is a minority teaching among Christians, both historically and today. I know the argument of historicity doesn't defeat Calvinism, but I think it's worth to mention in this debate. Anything to show people to the truth. I think you agree.
Thanks for your longer and clarifying post! I appreciate it!
Christ love!
P.s. It would be interesting some day to discuss what we do agree on. I know there are a lot of things. In some questions I don't think we as far appart as it first seem.