The Instigator
joneszj
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
acvavra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Calvinism is heretical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
joneszj
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,706 times Debate No: 24773
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

joneszj

Con

First, my thanks to Acvavra for originally initiating the debate and his willingness to continue from the it. Discussing Calvinism and Arminianism is one of my favorite topics. I hope that God will be glorified in our exchange and that we will leave satisfied.

To rebuild a debate that was initiated earlier:

Round 1, acceptance, details the majority of the debate will cover
Round 2-3, cross examination
Round 4, final defenses & closing remarks

Rules:
-Respond in a systematic manner
-Cite sourse(s) of quotes
-Insults and the such ARE permitted
-All points of the TULIP are open for discussion
-Arminianism is also open for discussion
-We will to our best degree avoid ambiguous terminology and when it is used we will endeavor to more specifically detail what we are intending to say
-Since the debate entails Calvinism it is expected that both parties are familiar with other modes of soteriology such as Arminianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, etc.
-PRO must demonstrate that 1 or more points of the TULIP is heretical

I will be taking the CON position namely that Calvinism is consistent with scripture. Acvavra will be taking the PRO position namely that Calvinism is heretical in atleast 1 of its 5 points often described by the acronym TULIP. To begin, I will quote my initial response in the previous debate that briefly details the first 4 points in the TULIP. Acvavra will respond with his argument on why any of those points are heretical.

To the points!

1 Total Depravity
The first thing to note about Total Depravity is that neither side of the debate disagrees with it. Historically Arminianism has always upheld the doctrine of Total Depravity just as Calvinism has. Total depravity basically teaches that all of the human being is tainted with sin to the extent that without the grace of God man left to his own devices would never initiate faith from within himself. The only circles that reject Total Dipravity are Pelagianists and Semi-Pelagianists. Arminians (free-willers) are not semi-pelagianists.

The dividing point is actually a point between behind the TULIP as a whole. Its particular placement would not fit between any particular letter but it does fit with the whole. It is the issue of how God effectually remediates the fallen nature of man. This is called Prevenient Grace by both sides. To the Calvinist, Prevenient Grace is accomplished by Regeneration of the elect by the Holy Spirit which inevitably results is the saving of that person. For the Arminian, Prevenient Grace is in some manner bestowed to all of humanity that to some form and degree restrains the sinful fallen nature of man so that when presented with the gospel message they have the possibility of accepting or rejecting it. The scope, degree, and time of the Arminian mode of Prevenient Grace seems to differ person to person.

2 Unconditional Election
When discussing Election it is important to note that again neither side rejects electtion or predestining. The argument is whether God elects unconditionally as the Calvinists believe or if God predestines by foreknowing that man would first choose Him and then electing them based on that foreknowledge as the Arminians do.

3 Limited Atonement
Probably the most debated point. It is more of a logical necessity of the other points. Limited Atonement deals with the efficacy of the atonement. For whom was the atonement accomplished for. There are essentially only three possible results of the atonement scenario:

1 (Calvinism) The atonement was for the elect only and accomplished it for the elect definitely
2 (Arminianism) The atonement was for the whole of humanity and is only effectual for only those who believe
3 (Universalism) The atonement was for the whole of humanity and is effectual for all

The Calvinist view and Arminian view are extremely similar. The difference is in the defining and operations of the elect. Limited Atonement was established to simply state that if Christ had effectually atoned for all people then either he A) succeeded thus all people are saved or B) failed thus having its own theological implications of God failing to accomplish something. So, Limited Atonement is necessary to show that only the elect (Calvinism), or those who believe (Arminianism, also considered elect) receive the effect of the atonement as opposed to all of humanity.

4 Irresistible Grace
Irresistible Grace, like all of the point in the acronym can be misleading. It teaches that the elect cannot reject the call of salvation. This is accomplished because after regeneration the person is compelled not just by God but also by their changed nature and thus there is nothing resisting their confession. What is misleading about this point is that many people take it and erringly conclude that the God in all ways cannot be resisted. That is not what the point teaches. Calvinists very much do believe that God can be resisted. Calvinists see two modes of will in scripture with regard to God. A Decretive will and a Revealed will. The decretive will is that which cannot be resisted and must come to pass. Examples of Gods decretive will would be: Creation, the crucifixion of Christ, the predestining of the elect, Regeneration. Gods Revealed will can be resisted. Examples of Gods revealed will would be: the commandments (not just the ten), Gods desire that none should perish, etc. More often than not most Arminians also share the same view on the different wills of God that Calvinists do and may use different terms such as Permissive will and the such. Point being, when examined, Irresistible Grace differs from Arminianism in that Regeneration is not in Gods decretive will, and thus may be resisted.

5 Perseverance of the Saints
I will not go into detail on this point as you said we are debating the first four points. I would like to note that I find it inconsistent to believe in point 5 and yet not points 2, 3, and 4 along with the manner of which God accomplishes Prevenient Grace.

Thanks!
acvavra

Pro

I appreciate how well my opponent put to gether his opening round. I accept. I would like to point out that Jacob Arminian did believe in eternal security, once saved, always saved, just as the Calvinists do. He said, " at no period have I asserted that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation(Ibid., vol 1 , p.741)." His followers were the ones to reject eternal security. Thus, I don't want to discuss the 5th point because we both are in agreement.
However, the burden of proof is on me to show why the first 4 points are heretical. May the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
joneszj

Con

Left blank for PRO to substantiate his claim
acvavra

Pro

Here is why Calvinism is heretical and not Biblical:

Heresy- anything not in line with orthodox Biblical doctrine

Now, Calvinism uses an acronym to describe their five major points or doctrines. Its called TULIP. T-Total Depravity of Man, U-Unconditional Election, L-Limited Atonement I-Irrisitable Grace
P-Perseverance of the saints(not to be discussed)

Now, Calvinism is all about definitions. I agree with Total Depravity, man is so wicked that he is depraved. However, Calvinism defines it as Total Inability. This means that man is so depraved that he cannot repent and accept the Gospel by his own free will. God has to regenerate you and only if your one of the elect. This contradicts Ephesians 1:13 where we believe first, then are saved, John 1:12 because we receive Christ first, and John 3:16 where God saves those who believe, not who He chooses. Further, when God told Adam to not eat from the tree, God was really willing it for Adam to eat from the tree. It wasn't Adam's free will that did it, God willed it to happen and then punished Adam for it afterwards! Why would God say, "that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH" when He already chose the elect before the foundation of the world? It wasn't really "whosoever" if it was JUST the elect, now is it? Ephesians 1:13 says "ye believed" AFTER "ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise." You BELIEVE FIRST, THEN get saved. John 1:12 says God gave power to "as many as received Him" FIRST. You must receive Him before you get power.

2 Peter 3:9 contradicts Unconditional Election because, "God is NOT WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH" which includes the non-elect. If God was not willing that "the elect should perish" as the calvinist interprets it, then what would be the point of the verse. God already knew that the elect would not perish before the foundation of the world. The verse is nonsensical according to Calvinist theology. The idea of God creating some people to be saved and others not to be saved is BLASPHEMOUS. Calvinism is saying God created some people to be saved and others to ,"Fuel the fires of Hell"(R. C. Sproul- Calvinist).

I am not exaggerating one bit. Calvinists admit that man has no free will to receive Christ and God arbitrarily chose some to be saved and others to fuel the fires of Hell. Doesn't this border on the definition of a cult?

Further, 1 Peter 1:2, IT DESTROYS UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION because ELECTION is based on God's foreknowledge of a person appropriating Christ's blood atonement for sin and sanctification of the Spirit. IT IS NOT based on God's sovereign pleasure.

Now with Limited Atonement, my opponent is going to have to ignore a plethera of verses. Consider 1 Timothy 2:4, [God] "who will have ALL MEN TO BE SAVED." Verse 6, "Who gave himself a ransom for ALL." 2 Peter 2:1 says false prophets were BOUGHT by the Lord. To be bought, means God atoned for their sins. Limited Atonement is refuted by 1 John 2:2,"And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Let me stop and say that if this point were true that God did not die for the sins of the unelect, thus God created them just to fuel the fires of Hell! Do you really think that is Biblical? Hebrews 10:29 destroys Limited Atonement. It says, "how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and HATH COUNTED THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHEREWITH HE WAS SANCTIFIED, AN UNHOLY THING,(God ATONED for his sins), AND HATH DONE DESPITE UNTO THE SPIRIT OF GRACE? There also goes Irrisistable Grace out the window because someone resisted the Spirit of grace.

Irrisistable Grace basically says that God regenerates or saves a sinner against the sinners will because he is too "corrupt"(Total Inability) to receive Christ on his own. Its irrisistable because the elect cannot refuse it. Yet Christ said to Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE WOULD NOT! That looks like they refused God to me. My opponent claims that men just cant refuse the Gospel if they are elect, but they can refuse other things. Well, the Jews were God's chosen people(elect), and they refused their Saviour who brought the Gospel.

Further, heretical doctrine has to defend itself by means of violence, which Calvin resorted to. He burned Michael Servetus to the stake. Why? Because Servetus disagreed with him on doctrine. That's why. Nice guy, right? Arminius never killed anyone and showed respect to his enemy-John Calvin. Further let me mention that John Calvin grew up as a Roman Catholic and kept many of their traditions: infant baptism, transubstantion, the sacraments, amillenial(my opponent is a Baptist and most Baptists are premillenial!) and killed those who disagreed with him. Jacob Arminius was much more Protestant than Calvin, after all, Arminius rejected the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Moreover, John Calvin burned people to the stake for the crime of "witchcraft" when plagues occured in Geneva. He beheaded a little girl in Geneva for disobeying her parents. Evidently, John Calvin resorted to the Old Testament a lot. Now, remember, this is the guy that Calvinists say fully expounded upon the doctrines of grace. Some founder. Even if Calvinists go and say, "Augustine was the actual founder" they are still confronted with a problem. Augustine believed in the same Roman Catholic dogma a Calvin. He was a Catholic before Catholicism started.

This should be good for now.
Debate Round No. 2
joneszj

Con

Thank you Acvara, I will begin by systematically addressing each of my oponents points with the exception of Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace.

1) Total Depravity
Acvarva begins his attack on the doctrines of grace by claiming that Total Depravity and Total Innability are separate and distinct from each other. He specifies this difference by saying “This (Total Inability) means that man is so depraved that he cannot repent and accept the Gospel by his own free will.”. Effectually what Acvara is saying is that dispite mans corrupt nature there is a bastion of righteousness and hope in the nature of man the permits him to freely choose to believe in the gospel.

***Total Depravity/Total Inability
There is NO difference between Total Depravity and Total Inability. The terms are used exchangingly to more specifically in certain circumstances to more accuratley describe what both terms represent. The opening wikipedia article uses both terms to describe the same idea:
“Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Here is a quote from Jacobus Arminius describing the condition of human will:
“Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace.... This grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co operates lest we will in vain.[ “
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Arminius effectually is saying that man left by himself without any form of grace form God is ‘unable’ to begin and spiritual good. His depiction of the human will is to effect the exact same result detailed in Total Dipravity:

“The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Notice how man is not inclined only but also not ‘able’. Hence, Total Inability is synonomous to Total Depravity.

***Semi-Pelagianism
Instead, what Acvara is actually detailing of man having some form are unscathed ability to chose the gospel apart from God first intervening is actually semi-Pelagianism. A system of soteriology that Arminians and Calvinists have declared heretical.
For space conservation I ask Acvara and the reader to compare what Acvara describes as his form of Total Depravity with semi-Pelagianism here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

***Verses used by Acvara
None of the verses actually determine that man can on his own ability choose the gospel apart from a form of grace from God.
Eph 1:13 says only that when one believes they are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit
John 1:12 says that those who believed were given the right to becone children of God
John 3:16 says that those who believe will have eternal life

None of these verses say that man has the ability in himself to choose God. None of these veres refute the notion that one is regenerated, believes, and is saved and recieves the gift of the Holy Spirit.

***Adam in the garden
Everything happens according to the will of God Eph 1:11. This however aught to be resolved in a separate debate as it involves more of the sovereignty of God through redemptive history than it does on how God saves.

***Prevenient Grace
I urge Acvara to study the true difference between Arminianism and Calvinism over Total Depravity by recognizing that they both believe the same Total Depravity but differ over how God remedies the condition.

“The differences between the solutions to the problem of total depravity revolve around the relation between divine grace and human free will – namely, whether it is efficacious grace that human free will cannot resist, as in Calvinism, or prevenient grace enabling the human will to choose to follow God, as in Arminianism and Molinism.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

2) Unconditional Election
***2 Peter 3:9
2 Peter 3:9 does not reference unconditional election at all. Instead it shows Gods revealed will in Gods desire that non perish (Elect/reprobate). Also, the context of 2 Peter 3:9 is refering to “those who have obtained a faith…” 1v1, “beloved” 3v1 “patient towards you” 3v9 the ‘you’ in 3v9 is the peoples in 1v1 and 3v1, Christians (elect). There is nothin ‘nonsensical’ in God revealing He wishes none to perish while predestining the elect to salvation, nor does it negate Unconditional Election.

1 Peter 1:2
Acvara must demonstrate that Gods predestining is via foreknowledge resulting in God rewarding those who believe because they chose to believe as opposed to God predestining according to His own pleasure, examine Romans 9:15-15:

“For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
(ESV)

Please note, “it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God”

***Other verses concerning predestining and choosing
Matthew 22:14
Mark 4:10-12
Eph. 1:3-5

3 + 4) Limited Atonement + Irresistable Grace
In the comments we have agreed to lightly discuss these two points and discuss them more heavily in a separate debate for the sake of space (charaters currently at 7361). Instead, Acvara has addressed more of Irresistable Grace and Limited Atonement then he has Unconditional Election. Unless our debate over the first two points are resolved before this debate ends I wil save my rebuttal for the next debate. If my oponent has changed his mind and desires my rebutal for these points I will post them in round 3.

5) Ad Homonim
Acvara here attacks with a Ad Homonim. Servetus denied the Trinity (a doctrine held by Calvinists and Arminians alike) and infant baptism. He was accused and arrested in Vienne, escaped and was found in Geneva. He was burnt at the stake to prevent his heresy from spreading. Calvin had requested that he be beheaded as a traitor and not burnt at the stake as a heretic. Not only were the Reformers supportive of the condemnation but also the libertines who were oposed to Calvin and his teachings. The counsil that actually condemned him was not led by Calvin but by Perrin Tissot (a Libertine). Details can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The execution of Serventus has been used often to discount the theology known as Calvinism. Yet, the theology lists no tenet of execution for heresy and such acts should not be blamed because of it, but instead by blame should be on principles of thought at the time.

6) Other
Acvara calls me a Baptist. I lean towards Baptism theology in regards to its view on infant baptism but I do not consider myself a Baptist specifiacally in any form of eschatology. Calvins views on other doctrines that go beyond the scope of the TULIP have no weight in this debate. Orthopraxy should not be an indicator of the validity of orthodoxy. As to the other accounts of execution my opponent places against Calvin I have never heard of and ask that if it is not pertinent to the doctrine of Calvinism to stay to topics in regard to the theology. Thank you

acvavra

Pro

Orthodoxy-traditional view of Biblical Doctrine

I thank my opponent for his arguments. I will not go on with Limited Atonement and Irrristable Grace as that is as light as I can make those points. I will now continue with Total Depravity and Unconditional Election.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use to defend Calvinism on Total Depravity for a formal debate. I would like to remind my opponent that ugustine is not a good person to use either, since his beliefs(Eucharist, black robes, infant baptism, etc.) ultimately led to the Roman Catholic Church, and Calvinism is supposed to be Protestant.
My opponent quotes Arminius as if this matters. Arminius and Calvin were very similar to each other. I understand that. But I'm not an Arminian or a Calvinist. Both were wrong on many things, I'm a Bible Believer. This debate is not on Arminius, though, its on Calvinism and John Calvin. My opponent needs to be defending John Calvin, forget Arminius. Again, my opponent constantly references wikipedia which is not a reliable source.

My opponent believes that for man to choose to accept Christ on his own free will is a works salvation, which is why he brings up semi-pelagianism. It is not. If I ask someone for a glass of water, and they give it to me, how much work did I do? I, by my own free will, chose to accept the glass of water. Why would the Gospel be any different? My verses(Eph 1:13, John 1:12, John 3:16) do indeed show that man can choose to accept the Gospel. They say that YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO GET ETERNAL LIFE,(that's free will, Con) THEY DID NOT SAY THAT YOU WAIT FOR GOD TO REGENERATE YOU!

My opponent skirts my argument about Adam in the garden. How many debates do you plan to have? I don't care if Arminians and Calvinists agree on Total Depravity, I care about what the Scriptures say!

Concerning 2 Peter 3:9, it is nonsensical to say God is not willing that any should perish if the people He was referring to(Elect), He already MADE IT SO THAT THEY WOULD NEVER PERISH!

Now if the Calvinist is right on Unconditional Election, then God is the author of sin. God has decreed, according to his sovereign pleasure, that the non-elect are going to burn in Hell, and anything they do on earth God has willed it to happen. God FORCED Adam to eat from the tree, because He willed for it to happen. John Calvin writes: "We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees." (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: "First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined." (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121, emphasis mine)
Calvin explains: "God had no doubt decreed before the foundation of the world what He would do with every one of us and had assigned to everyone by His secret counsel his part in life." (Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, p.20, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: "…the reason why God elects some and rejects others is to be found in His purpose alone. … before men are born their lot is assigned to each of them by the secret will of God. … the salvation or the destruction of men depends on His free election." (Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.203, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: "But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the AUTHOR of them." (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.176, emphasis mine)
Is Calvinism Not Heretical? These are the words of John Calvin himself. God is the author of sin according to him.

Further, why did God create the non-elect? Well, CALVINIST R.C. Sproul said they were created to, "Fuel the fires of Hell"(R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1987, pp. 142-145). Isn't God just loving? He created some people just to burn in Hell and they have no way out of it. Calvinism is heretical!
Romans 9:15 says man cannot force God to have mercy on him apart from the conditions God has given, which is receiving Christ as Saviour.
Matt 22:14- "few are chosen" because few are willing to take the wedding garment in the context(verses 12-13).
Mark 4:10-12-Simply, the OT explains this, God blinded them so that they couldn't see and understand because their hearts were set to be wicked. And God took advantage of that in order to have the crucifixion happen so that THE WHOLE WORLD could be saved, even the gentiles. If they had beleived then they wouldn't have crucified Him, and guess where that would leave you and me and the billions of other souls that have come to faith in Christ since that time. It is my belief however that they were forgiven for this, because Jesus said "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." If Jesus said it, then it must be that they were forgiven. After all, Jesus is God in the flesh, right?
Eph 1:3-5-election is conditioned upon being in Christ. The Calvinist would have you believe you were in Christ "before the foundation of the world." NONSENSE! If you were, you fell out of Christ into Adam, and then fell out of Adam and back into Christ! NO MAN is in Christ UNTIL he TRUSTS CHRIST(Eph 1:13).

Why is my opponent against using Ad Homonim on Servetus? In round 1, which you set up the rules, you said "-Insults and the such ARE permitted." Are you contradicting your own rules now? Further, I"m glad Servetus believed infant baptism to be heretical. I reject it also. Now Servetus may have been wrong about the Trinity, but does he deserve to die over it? Servetus was also condemed by Catholics for saying the Mass was a Satanic monstrosity and an invention of demons. Why didn't Calvin believe that? Servetus said the Pope was "O vilest of all beasts, most brazen of harlots"(Banton, Hunted Heretic, p.20). Could it be Servetus was more Protestant than Calvin? Further, Con to say, "He was burnt at the stake to prevent his heresy from spreading" brings your morality into question. Do you believe that its okay to murder people who disagree with you? Are you going to hunt me down now and murder me? Further, "Calvin requesting that he be beheaded" doesn't mean anything. Its still murder! Further, it doesn't matter if murder was common during the time, surely Calvin would know better if he was as Biblical as you claim. The Christian martyrs of the 1st through 3rd centuries willingly died by being eaten by lions. Murder was rampant during the Roman Empire. The Anabaptists, against whom Calvin wrote Against the Anabaptists in 1544 did not believe in persecuting their opponents.

Now, I admit, I made a mistake. My opponent is not a Baptist, he is a Presbyterian. However, if you reject infant baptism, I'm not sure why you are a Presbyterian.

As to Calvin burning people for 'witchcraft" that can be found The Other Side of Calvinism by Laurence Vance. As to beheading a little girl, that can be found in History of the New Testament Church, Vol. 1, by Peter Ruckman.
Debate Round No. 3
joneszj

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

Thank you Acvavra. My original rebuttal is tool long to post so I
will focus only on the main points. The original rebutal in detail will be
posted in the comments section. The text in bold are the sections I am
responding to from Acvavra.


Wikipedia is not a reliable source to
use to defend Calvinism on Total Depravity for a formal debate.

A sourses validity is determined by its content. Wiki
represents Calvinism faithfully. From an orthodox perspective in Protestantism
soteriology one is either Calvinist, Lutheran, Arminian, or heretical (Pelagianism
or semi-Pelagianism).


My opponent believes that for man to
choose to accept Christ on his own free will is a works salvation, which is why
he brings up semi-pelagianism.

The Bible commands all to repent & believe, that
none have the ability to do so, that a form of grace must come before them in
order for one to believe. Acvavra clearly
rejects this and effectually makes him unable to defend orthodoxy as any other
view, is NOT orthodox, but heretical. The only other views of soteriology are
Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.



My opponent skirts my argument about
Adam in the garden.


Will be addressed at point : A


Concerning 2 Peter 3:9

I have demonstrated from context that God willing
to make known to the elect His desire that none of them shall perish while
decreeing it and accomplishing it in the life of the church. Acvavra seemingly
fails to observe that God operates in both from eternity and in temporal time
and sapce.



Now if the Calvinist is right on
Unconditional Election, then God is the author of sin
.

Acvara makes a critical mistake here. He confuses
Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism and quotes John Calvin as teaching
hyper-Calvinism. This is not the case. He does this with each quote.


Point: A Quotes of Calvin + Problem of
Evil


When Calvin speaks or ordaining and authoring evil he does not mean that God
forces creation to do evil. That notion is hyper-Calvinism. What Calvin is
saying is that God permits, ordains, and limits sin so that Gods purposes are
established and carried out. Lets take Job for an example. Satan must petition
to God to do evil to Job. God permits it with a limitation to not kill Job. So
we see that evil is ‘authored’ in this manner for God to accomplish His will to
ordain it. This lines up perfectly with Eph 1:11 while maintaing a just God. It
is the view that God does not ordain evil that is 1) not substantiated in
scripture and 2) has evil occuring for no reason. Such a notion has a
non-sovereign God who is impotent to ordain all things for His purposes. It
also must presuppose that evil has an origin outside of Gods
purpose/sovereignty.


Further, why did God create the
non-elect?

This issue is ambiguous to any mode of soteriology.
It is an issue with sovereignty which all Christians who believe in a sovereign
all knowing God must face. God created the non-elect knowing they would fall
and reject the gospel. He did not force their will to do so. This is known as
the Problem of Evil, and I believe Calvinism addresses it best over the other
modes while remaining true to scripture. But this topic is not the objective of
this debate.

Romans
9:15 says man cannot force God to have mercy on him apart from the conditions
God has given, which is receiving Christ as Saviour.

Romans 9:15 the grace you speak of in Romans 9 is the mercy given to

those 'before they had done any good or bad',
so that 'Gods purpose in

election might stand'



Matt 22:14- "few are chosen"
because few are willing to take the wedding garment in the context(verses
12-13).


Matt 22:14: The context of the feast is with that of
the previous two

other parables. Its about the Jews rejection
of Christ and the

ingrafting of the Gentiles. Does God still
choose? Yes. Eph 1:5,

Romans 9, Numbers 16:5.



Mark 4:10-12-Simply, the OT explains
this, God blinded them so that they couldn't see and understand because their
hearts were set to be wicked. And God took advantage of that in order to have
the crucifixion happen so that THE WHOLE WORLD could be saved, even the
gentiles. If they had beleived then they wouldn't have crucified Him, and guess
where that would leave you and me and the billions of other souls that have
come to faith in Christ since that time.


Your first sentence mimicks EXACTLY how Calvinists view
reprobation. What is interesting here is that you allow God here to do this yet
when the Calvinist says He does it, its heretical? Because of scope? If Eph
1:11 means ALL things then even the non-saved were 1) foreknown and 2) ordained
to be judged to hell. This does not mean that God forced their unbelief but
instead gave them over to themselves because their hearts were ‘set to be
wicked’. Also, your willing to say that these people were depraved beyond a
point to that which God simply gave them over to themselves. But why just them?
What makes the rest of humanity special? Your understanding leaves God subject
to fate…

It is my belief however that they were forgiven for this, because Jesus said
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." If Jesus said
it, then it must be that they were forgiven. After all, Jesus is God in the
flesh, right?

Here you claim God will forgive them because they were ignorant of
their evil! If they were forgiven then it is only because they repented and put
their trust in him. To say that ignorance, and not faith, can be a means of
pardon contradicts the whole Bible.



Eph 1:3-5-election is conditioned upon
being in Christ. The Calvinist would have you believe you were in Christ
"before the foundation of the world." NONSENSE! If you were, you fell
out of Christ into Adam, and then fell out of Adam and back into Christ! NO MAN
is in Christ UNTIL he TRUSTS CHRIST(Eph 1:13).


The verse says predestined ‘to be’ implying that the
being made holy was after the decree. In a sense you were because it was
decreed but not effectually until faith.



Why is my opponent against using Ad
Homonim on Servetus?


By rules I had in mind something like: I did not want
someone to shy from saying ‘I feel it is foolish/heretical to believe x’ or ‘belief
in x is foolish/heretical’ etc. I did not have intention to allow ad hominem.
As I explained before Calvin requested Serventus be beheaded for treason not
heresy, and that the one who carried out the burning was a non-Calvinist. As I
said before Calvinism has no pillar on or about executing heretics, such
actions should be viewed in the principle of thought at the time. Sigh, when I
said "He was burnt at the stake to prevent his heresy from spreading"
I was not endorsing the execution, I was attempting to bring light to the
principle of thought at the time. Calvin was Biblical but not infallable. Your
rant of him seems to be generated by a frustration of his theology.


Now, I admit, I made a mistake.

I lean between the two for various reasons. I would be
more accepted by Baptists but the majority of my theology is Presbyterian.



Closing

It is self evident to me that Acvavra holds a
non-orthodox view of scripture. This is because he rejects the notion that 1)
man is depraved 2) that God must do something to make man alive 3) that God is
sovereign over everything. All of which are held by the three orthodox soteriological
circles: Calvinism, Luthranism, Arminianism. Either Acvavra believes that man
is born morally free from sin (Pelagianism), or man is born depraved but not
enough to prevent them from accepting the gospel done without any operation of
God in the heart. Each or which are considered heretical to all modes of
orthodox soteriology.

Acvara has not substantiated that man is 1)
not totally depraved, 2) elected unconditionally.

I leave the last word to you bud!

acvavra

Pro

I had an 8,000 character response and left debate.org to quote a verse from Bible Gateway. When I came back, the reponse was lost because it wasn't auto saved. I don't want to retype the whole response, so I going to leave the debate the way it is. If I lose, I lose.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
I think I am going to follow your advice.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
"I had an 8,000 character response and left debate.org to quote a verse from Bible Gateway. When I came back, the reponse was lost because it wasn't auto saved. I don't want to retype the whole response, so I going to leave the debate the way it is. If I lose, I lose."

Meh don't you hate that!?!? Happened to me all the time. I just stopped using the browser and have been using word processors. Chrome is decent at retaining info like that but internet explorer fails miserably.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
LOL @ jousting over supposed "orthodoxy" vs "heresy". I think what the Bible teaches, as a whole, on a given topic should be called "orthodox." And what is contrary to Bible teaching, as a whole, on the subject is thus "heretical". Interesting debate, other than the yapping about what Arminius or Pelagius or Augustine may have believed.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
Well I am having difficulty pasting the rebuttaly here (weird spacing). If you are interested I will post it or email it (PM me) :) If you want me to specifically address something that perhaps I missed just let me know :)

When you are ready you may begin the next debate. We can continue with T + U or move on to L + I

Thank you for participating Acvavra
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
Acvara, glad you defined heresy. I need to ask you waht is Orthodoxy now.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
Well whatever the outcome it was preordained by God to happen and thus has a good and God glorifying ultimate outcome :-P

The largest obstacle I believe Acvavra has is determining what exactly is heresy/cultish and then seeing that Calvinism does not fall under heresy. Atleast not to my knowledge ;-P
Posted by Paradox_7 4 years ago
Paradox_7
Lol JONESZ you better own this guy..
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
Jaconus Arminius may have accepted Perserverance of the saints but he also accepted Total Dipravity, and esteemed Calvin and his commentaries with an extremely high regard:

"After the reading of Scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other ... I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the Fathers -- so much that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all"

And never considered (to my knowledge) Calvin or Calvinism as heretical ;-)

Also, it would be good to define what a heretical doctrine is.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
PRO*** kool.
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
yes, to both questions, it's okay
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NewCreature 4 years ago
NewCreature
joneszjacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to first of all grasp an accurate knowledge of the Calvinism view. Pro failed to refute the Calvinist teachings with scripture (obviously impossible). Con did a great job refuting Pro's rebuttals. No sympathy for Pro, I had to retype my posts numerous times at the very last minute.