The Instigator
IStifleNegativeThoughts
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Debate Topic: Calvinism

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 5 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 52798
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

IStifleNegativeThoughts

Con

Calvinism - The belief that suggests that there is Hell and there is Heaven, and that our life actions determine our fate.

Rules:

Same as before.

1. No plagiarism. I did before. My friend abruptly caught me and scolded me. He had a book checked out at the Library just that day, dedicated to politics. He flipped through the pages wildly. I was reading a book. A seal pup felt sharks were still prowling around the sea. He nudged me. He retorted, "According to this, if you copy someone else's work without their consent, claiming it as your own, you would be infringing copyright!" He cared. Fear dissented, as I've done so a lot. This will result in a loss of a conduct point and argument points.

2. No trolling. This will result in a loss of a conduct point.

3. Opponent can first subsequently present their arguments. Don't have to.
Debate Round No. 1
IStifleNegativeThoughts

Con

According to Calvinism, God is an omniscient being. That means that he knows the future. So, if he already knows the future actions of a person, what's the point?
Mikal

Pro

Not much to type but i'll break this down. I am not spending a lot of time on this because of his short response and due to the fact I think he will probably FF

Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)


Essentially what Calvinism is proposing is that we are all born into sin and that God has already ordained an elect. That elect is the only group of people that will be saved. If God chooses you to be saved you cannot deny him or refuse him.

Why it Matters

You have no idea who the elect are. God knows everything so even if he ordained an elect, you still have the free will to deny or chose salvation but the issue is that God already knows and has ordained it. So in a sense you have free will, but no matter what you chose the outcome will be inevitable and was already chose by God. So we still have the ability to chose what to do, but we are not aware of who or what was already chosen.

This does not hinder witnessing or anything because it is still our job to preach the gospel to people because we do not know who the elect is. We still must preach to the world because it could be our job to help an elect get saved. Granted even if we did not, he would still be saved in the end. We all have our parts to play.

The best way to look at it is like this. Life on earth is like a book that is already written. God is just reading the chapters, so any choice we made has already been authored by him. We are the characters in the book and think that all of our actions mean something, when in the end everything has already been chosen for us. So even if you decided there is no point and not to go out and witness, this was already in God's plan. Everything is already pre determined.

Verses that support Calvinism.


[1] Rom 9:15-16 " For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."[a] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

[2] Rom 9:21 "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

[3] Rom 9:11-13 "(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her,"The older shall serve the younger."[a] 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

[4] Rom 8:21-30 " For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

[5] John 6:44 "( "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.)

If he chooses to respond , I will go deeper into this. I will also answer the question if God has ever sent anyone to hell.
Debate Round No. 2
IStifleNegativeThoughts

Con

IStifleNegativeThoughts forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
IStifleNegativeThoughts

Con

IStifleNegativeThoughts forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IStifleNegativeThoughts

Con

IStifleNegativeThoughts forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
I would just like to point out that Calvinism is just a form of protestantism which is just a form of christianity...What's the difference? In beliefs?-nothing, only in organization. The calvinists were founded in France while in England we got the Anglican church and the Lutheran in germany...
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
I think Con could've won this debate if he hadn't forfeited. Definitions are stipulations in debates, so even if they are wrong, they can't be negated. Con's definition of Calvinism was wrong, but it was a stipulation of the debate. But Mikel didn't attempt to prove Calvinism by the stipulated definition. He attempted to prove Calvinism with a different definition. Given the definition stipulated in round 1, this debate wasn't over the TULIP; it was over heaven/hell.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
He didn't know what Calvinism was =/
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 2 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
Yeah, this only vaguely resembles Calvinism in the fact that heaven and hell are mentioned and God is omniscient. Of course, that also means it resembles lots of religions in themselves.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
I don't think you know what Calvinsim is...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
IStifleNegativeThoughtsMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
IStifleNegativeThoughtsMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited R3, R4, R5. This left Pro hanging and should have been handled in a more professional manner such as conceding. S & G - Tie. Neither made mistakes that would cost them points or give reason to award points to one over another. Arguments - Pro. Con's arguments amounted to nothing more than posing a question to Pro. Whereas Pro presented information that validated his position in regards to answering and informing Con. Pro also presented arguments that stand unchallenged by Con. Sources - Pro. He presented evidence that can be easily verified by sourcing biblical verses that support his position. Whereas Con failed to provide any sources for validation purposes or as support for his argument (question).
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
IStifleNegativeThoughtsMikalTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Mikal called it in the second round. "I think he will probably FF"
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
IStifleNegativeThoughtsMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty basic. Even based off of the arguments given, Mikal is winning this. The forfeits just make it shorter.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
IStifleNegativeThoughtsMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "I am not spending a lot of time on this because of his short response and due to the fact I think he will probably FF". Maybe Mikal knows the future as well, so there was apparently no point in debating.