The Instigator
Jake33ss
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is Calvinism biblical?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 77120
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Jake33ss

Pro

Hello I believe calvinism is taught by the bible . I am exited for this debate. For anyone who doesn't know what calvinism is these are the five points
Radical depravity.that man is sinful in his nature and is unable to turn to God (John 6:44 Romans 3:23)
Unconditional election. That God From before time began chose who would be saved (Ephesians 1:4 Romans 9)
Definite atonement . That in his death Jesus secured the salvation of the elect.(john 10:1-29
Irrestible grace . That when god calls someone they will come to him.(john 6:37)
Persevering grace.that God will sanctify a saved person and they will not lose their salvation.(Romans 8:29-39
I am interested to see the response
dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. It should
be fun.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Since the debate resolution is a question, the burden of proof will be
shared. It will be shared, but not shared equally. For my opponent to
win, he must show how each of the five points above are biblical. As
Con, however, I simply have to show one of the points to be unbiblical,
and I win. After all, if one point is not biblical, then whatever the
Bible teaches... It's not Calvinism. It may be ALMOST Calvinism, but
it's not Calvinism. For example, Diet Coke may be ALMOST Coke, but
it's not Coke.

With this in mind, and because my opponent hasn't really made an
argument yet, I will only be attacking one of Calvin's points for
now... preserving grace.

Contention One: The Bible teaches that we can lose our salvation. Here are a few examples:

"Rom 11:17-23, "But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches...For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you...Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God"s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off."

Paul is talking about how salvation has come to the Gentiles, while many of the Jews have rejected it. And he makes it very clear that once you have been grafted into Christ, you must "continue in His kindness," or you can also be cut off. So, even after you"ve been saved, you can still be cut off from Jesus Christ.

This is further seen in Galatians, chapter 5. Verse 1, "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [sin]." If once saved always saved is true, then one cannot "submit again" to a "yoke of slavery," and Paul"s warning makes no sense.

But Paul goes on in verse 4 to say, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." Paul is talking to Gentile Christians who had been wrongly taught by the Judaizers that they have to be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law in order to be true Christians. Paul tells them that is false, and if they submit to circumcision and to the Old Law, they will be "severed from Christ." If once saved always saved is true, though, they can"t be severed from Christ and, once again, Paul"s warning is meaningless.
We also have the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke chapter 15. The Prodigal Son was in his father"s house, and the father here is representative of God the Father. Then, the Prodigal Son leaves his father"s house and goes and lives a sinful life. In the end, though, he repents and returns to his father. After the Prodigal Son returns, the father says this of him in verse 24: "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found."

In Evangelical terminology, to be dead is to be unsaved, and to be alive is to be saved. Notice very carefully, though, that the father says the son is alive "again." In other words, the son was alive, or saved, when he was in his father"s house at the beginning of the parable; was "dead," or unsaved, when he left his father"s house and lived in sin; then was alive again, saved again, when he repented and returned to his father"s house. Alive, dead, alive again. Saved, unsaved, saved again." [1]

In my opinion, I have just negated the resolution and have won the debate. I bet my opponent has something to say about this, so I turn it over to him.

Sources:

1. http://www.biblechristiansociety.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Jake33ss

Pro

In his first arguement my opponent talked about persevering grace.
Rebut all 1: my opponent first talked about Romans 11:20-21 martyn Lloyd jones the great welsh preacher , put verses that seemed to claim that salvation could be lost in three categories 1.pasages that suggest we can fall away from grace 2. Passages that suggest salvation is uncertain 3.warning passages. Romans 11:20-21 is a warning passage. Martyn Lloyd jones said about this passage ,"To be concerned and troubled about the state of our soul when we read passages such as these is in itself evidence that we are sensitive to Gods word". What jones is getting at here is that a non christian will look at the warning and shrug but a true believer will take warning. To use the words of James Boice ,"it is by means of such warnings that God ensures our perserverance.
Rebuttal 2: my opponent also talked about Galations 4 which suggests we can fall away from grace. However the context of the passage is that the Galations are not following the gospel and pursued legalism. This shows that the Galations we're not actually following the gospel but their own works.
The case for perservering grace: Romans 8:39 says," nor depth,nor height, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God." This verse clearly states nothing can desperate us from the love of Jesus. John 6:39 says," and this is the will of the father that I should lose none of all that he has given me." Jesus shall lose none of what was given to him. I think these two texts clearly show that salvation is irrevocable (Romans 11: 29).
Total depravity: now what we arguing about in total depravity is not if man is totally bad but if man is either able or unable to come to christ which is called total inability . John 6:44 says ," no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him ." I believe this text speaks very clearly about total inability . Here are some more: Romans 3:11b ," no one seeks for God."
Unconditional election: Ephesians 1:4 ," even as he chose us before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him." This verse also clearly states that before the foundation of the world he chose a few for salvation : to be holy and blameless.
Effective call: Romans 11:29 says ," For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable." And we know from Ephesians 2:8 that salvation by faith is a gift so it must be irrevocable. John 6:37 says ," all that the father gives to me shall come to me". All that the father gives Jesus shall come to him
Definite atonement: john 10:11 says," I am the good shepherd I lay down my life for the sheep." He died for his sheep he calls his own sheep by name and they follow him.
dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response. I am glad
to see he is engaging in the debate. Having said that, I have to say I
disagree with some of his points.

REBUILD

Warning Passage???

In his response to my claims about "preserving grace", my opponent says some English pastor says the passage from Romans is simply a "warning passage" where God (through Paul) is simply warning believers to not do something. According to this preacher, God isn't really going to ever really allow someone to lose their salvation, He's simply warning us that we could lose our salvation.

REBUTTAL:

Here's the problem with this line of thinking: It makes God a liar. If
God warns us about us losing something we can't possibly lose, that's
being intentionally deceptive. That kind of claim flies directly in
the face of the clear teaching of the Bible:

Numbers 23:19:

God is not human, that he should lie... [3]

So we can clearly see that claims about "warning passages" are false.
With this in mind, my argument involving the book of Romans still
stands. My opponent can't get around the fact that Romans 11 say we
must "remain in His kindness" or we will be "cut off" from Christ.

Were the people Paul was writing to in the book of Galatians really
Christians???

My opponent tries to refute my arguments about how Galatians 5 speaks
of Christians being "severed from Christ" by saying they weren't really
Christians to begin with. This is faulty thinking on his part,
however, as it is not in line with the teachings of Paul found in
chapter 3 of the very same book:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through
faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ. [2]

Here we can clearly see Paul calls his Galatian audience "children of
God through faith". He goes on to say they "were baptized into
Christ".

So we can easily see that Paul considers them Christians, but warns
them of the possibility of losing their salvation.

My opponent then completely drops my arguments from Luke 15 (the
Prodigal Son). I extend all of those arguments.

My opponent then lists some verses he believes teach that we cannot
lose our salvation. I will now go over each of them and point out
where he is mistaken:

"Romans 8:39 says," nor depth,nor
height, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us
from the love of God."

REBUTTAL:

Sure, God loves everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone is
going to be saved. The existence of Hell proves that. God loves even
the damned. Surely my opponent agrees with that. If not, I ask him to
say otherwise.

"John 6:39 says," and this is the will of the
father that I should lose none of all that he has given me."

REBUTTAL:

I agree that Jesus doesn't lose anyone, but that doesn't mean
we can't lose our salvation. Rather, as in the case of the ad Prodigal
Son, we run away from Jesus. It's not Him who fails us; it's us who
fail Him.

With this in mind, we see the Bible teaches we can lose our salvation.
This fact negates one of the five points of Calvinism. And as we know,
if the Bible doesn't teach all five points of Calvinism, then whatever
the Bible teaches, it cannot be called Calvinism.

The resolution has been negated. I could stop here, but since I still
have a few characters left, so let's continue. Before doing so, I
would like to let my opponent know he doesn't have to argue for the
total depravity of man. I have never denied the Bible teaches that,
and won't begin now.

REBUTTALS OF MY OPPONENT'S CASE

Unconditional election: Ephesians 1:4 ," even as he chose us before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before him." This verse also clearly states that before the foundation of the world he chose a few for salvation : to be holy and blameless.

REBUTTAL:

I'm fine with this argument as long as my opponent isn't implying the teaching of "double predestination" where God also predestines some people to Hell. God simply passes over those He doesn't predestine to Heaven. They still are able to one day enter Heaven.

My opponent then spoke of:

"Effective call: Romans 11:29 says ," For the gifts and call of God are
irrevocable." And we know from Ephesians 2:8 that salvation by faith is
a gift so it must be irrevocable. John 6:37 says ," all that the father
gives to me shall come to me". All that the father gives Jesus shall
come to him"

REBUTTAL:

Once again, as long as my opponent is referring ONLY to those God predestined, I don't really have a problem with this. However, if my opponent is saying that those who are not predestined do not receive sufficient grace, then I must disagree. This is because Christ died for all of us, so it must be possible for all of us to go to Heaven. I will explain this rebuttal in more depth in my rebuttal concerning limited/definite atonement.

Finally my opponent refers to:

"Definite atonement: john 10:11 says," I am the good shepherd I lay down
my life for the sheep." He died for his sheep he calls his own sheep by
name and they follow him."

REBUTTAL:

Whether or not I can agree with this depends on if my opponent is saying Christ ONLY died for the elect. Certainly He did, but that's not all He died for. Let me explain further:

"One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. A
person may be said to have given himself for one person or group
without denying that he gave himself for others as well. Biblical
proof of this principle is found in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says
that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me," not at all implying
that Christ did not also give himself for other people. That Christ is
said to have given himself in a special way for his sheep, his friends,
or the Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also give himself
for all men in a different way.

The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all
men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1
John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not
for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes
God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." [4]

To summarize this round, again I would assert the fact that I negated the persevering grace point as strong evidence that I have already won this debate. I turn it back over to Pro.

Sources:

2.
https://www.biblegateway.com...

3. http://biblehub.com...

4. http://www.ewtn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jake33ss

Pro

Restatement: In his last arguement my opponent operated around the presupposition that once you are saved it is completely up to you whether you remain saved or not.
Rebuttal: My opponent failed to see the logic behind my arguement. There is no question that Romans11 is a warning that if they leave christ they will be cut off. That is a warning. And what is the purpose of this warning so that those in Christ will not leave. Someone who is not a christian will not heed the warning and someone who is will. Warnings are the way God ensures our sanctification.
Rebuttal 2: I will now negate both arguements that my opponent made ( luke15 and Galations 5) 1 john 2:19 says ," they went out from is but they were not of us for if they were of us they would have continued with us ." This passage clearly states that if someone leaves the faith they were never really Christians .
Case for: Romans 8:29-30 calls Christians sanctified past tense as if they are already perfect . This text sees the Christians very near future of sanctified as past tense because it is so certain it will happen. Jude 24 says ," now to him who is able to keep you ." Sanctification is up to God . And I am ever thankful for it .

Unconditional election : my opponent says he has no problem with unconditional election unless I believe only the elect will be saved. However I believe the logic of Ephesians 1:4 negates my opponents proposition . I believe the logic of the passage is that if you are now (present tense) in Christ , he has from before the foundation of the world chosen you to be holy and blameless. So I think all who are in Christ have been chosen.
I extend all other unanswered arguements and greatly look forward to my opponents response and am glad to see that we are both engaging with each other
dsjpk5

Con

A sincere thanks to my opponent for completing the debate. Winning a
debate via forfeit is fine, but I prefer to win this way.

REBUTTALS

Baseless Claim:

My opponent has clarified his position on Perseverance of the Saints.
He says he believes it's technically possible to lose one's salvation,
but that it never happens. The problem in his argument (which he bases on Romans 11) is that nowhere in that passage does it say anything about Christians always heading the warning. With this in mind, I ask the voters to reject this as the baseless claim that it is.

Never Really a Christian?

My opponent tries refute my arguments from Luke 15 and Galatians 5 by saying they were never really Christians. However, this flies in the
face of both passages...

Luke 15

For example, in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), verse 24
says "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is
found. And they began to be merry."

So we see the son was dead to the Father. Obviously he wasn't
physically dead, but rather spirituality dead. If he was spiritually
dead, he'd lost his salvation. But you can't say he was never saved
because he used to be the father's son.

Galatians 5

Again, saying only those who were never Christians are damned is not
consistent with Galatians 5. As we see from verses 4, "4 You are
severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have
fallen away from grace".

One cannot be severed from someone they were never attached to. Also, one can't fall from grace if they never had it.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the
Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an
open shame. [5]

"Colossians 1:21-23: And you, who once were estranged and hostile in
mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by
his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and
irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith,
stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which
you heard . . .

2 Peter 2:20-22: For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the
world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they
are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first . . . It has happened to them according to the true proverb, the dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

In response, the Protestant apologist will sometimes say these texts do
not indicate one who was truly saved could actually lose his salvation.
The one who, in the end, did not continue with the Lord, never really
knew the Lord in the first place. He only knew about the Lord. But this
line of reasoning does not hold up under scrutiny. In 2 Peter 2, the
Greek word used for knowledge is epignosei. This word means
"knowledge," but it denotes an experiential knowledge. This text is
very clear that the persons referred to have "escaped the pollutions of
the world" through this "experiential knowledge" of Jesus. Only a
personal relationship with Jesus can have this effect. Merely knowing
about Jesus cannot do that. Moreover, the image Peter uses in verse 22 is of the sow having been washed in water. Water is the symbol Peter uses for baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21. The connection seems obvious. The sow"female pig"which had been cleansed represents a person cleansed from sin; the sow returning to the mud represents the Christian returning to sin." [6]

Romans 8:29-30

With all due respect, Pro reads too much into this passage. Sure, these verses speak of God sanctifying those He predestined, but it doesn't say ALL those who are sanctified were predestined. It is still possible under this passage that God predestines a small amount of people who go to Heaven. With this in mind, these verses don't support either Pro or Con's position.

Jude 24

Sure, this verse says God is ABLE to keep us, but it doesn't say He always does. This verse doesn't help Pro.

Unconditional Election???

Pro says Ephesians 1:4 teaches only the predestined are saved. The problem with that is he's reading too much into the text. Paul could possibly only be referring to his audience. God wants all of us to be saved; the Bible says so:

1 Timothy 2: 3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God wants all men to be saved, it must be possible. Certainly my opponent doesn't think all mankind is predestined to Heaven, so this only leaves my argument as a plausible option.

SUMMARY OF DEBATE

I assert I should receive 5-6 points from every voter.

1. My opponent's conduct was fine, so that should be a tie.

2. My opponent's spelling was a bit sketchy in round one (Calvinism
wasn't capitalized, excited was spelled exited, missed placing a colon
after the word "points", capitalized "from" when he shouldn't, forgot
to close a parenthesis twice, and forgot to end with a period).

3. Arguments should go to me as I was able to show the Bible doesn't
teach Calvinism since not all five points are taught. As I pointed out
in the first round, Calvin light is not Calvinism just like Diet Coke
isn't Coke. Almost Calvinism isn't Calvinism.

4. My opponent had zero sources. All of his claims of sources (some
pastor) could not be verified since Pro didn't tell us where we could
verify the quote. On the other hand, I had several reliable sources.

Sources:

5.
https://www.biblegateway.com...

6. http://www.catholic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I want to thank my opponent for an interesting debate. I wish him luck in the future!
Posted by Burls 1 year ago
Burls
Oh boy, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2) by Jean Calvin' is available at Gutenberg.org
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by daley 1 year ago
daley
Jake33ssdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave Scripture and logic that Pro did not clearly refute.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Jake33ssdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins this debate, because he presents many Bible passages that state/imply that one can lose their salvation (namely Luke 15 and Galations 5). This refutes the central tenet of Calvinism named 'persevering grace'. Therefore, Con has fulfilled his burden of proof that Calvinism is not biblical by demonstrating that Calvinism (in part) contradicts the Bible.