The Instigator
The_Reformation
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Gileandos
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Reformed Theology is a True Representation of The Gospel

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Gileandos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,506 times Debate No: 20510
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (5)

 

The_Reformation

Pro

Reformed Theology (AKA Calvinism...) Is the best representation of the gospel because it puts the most emphasis on God's Sovereignty rather than man's ability or morality. Feel free to rebuttal in defense of Arminianism or any other theological background, if you wish to argue the point of whether God exists or any other false god, e.g .; Zeus, Allah. This is not the place.

I believe in 1) Total Depravity, Man's nature is sin and man can only act on that nature unless there is divine intervention. 2) Unconditional Election, God chooses who will come to him without partiality on the individuals part, but by his Grace alone. 3) Limited Atonement, The sacrifice on the cross paid the penalty of sins for the church, not for all. Meaning the invitation of salvation is extended to all, naturally not everyone will accept the invitation, therefore it only benefits believers, the atonement is limited to them. 4) Irresistible Grace, when God extends his grace to someone via the Holy Spirit it CANNOT be resisted, those who the Father draws near WILL come. 5) Perseverance of the Saints, When a person becomes a true Christian he may lose his way from time to time, but will ultimately continue to become stronger in the faith and ill never lose his salvation. These are the five points on which I stand. If you disagree, then I welcome you to oppose the argument.
Gileandos

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. Generally speaking, I have many constraints upon my time, but this debate is a subject that is too close to my personal walk to pass up. I myself started my Christian journey within a ‘reformed’ framework and walked away from the belief system due to many powerful reasons.

As a starting note, my opponent made only assertions in his opening round and offered no arguments to support the resolution, he may be unaware the Burden of Proof rests entirely upon him in this debate as both Pro and Instigator.

First some simplified definitions:

Gospel:the good news is that Jesus Christ came so that you can step into the light , so that you can be delivered of sin, death, and the efforts of the devil and join the kingdom of God, a joining begun on earth that continues for all eternity. John 3:16, Mat 4:23 Luke 8:1

Salvation: being set free or liberated from sin and its consequences, death, and the devil.

Synergism: the position of those who hold that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom.

Monergism: the position of those who believe that God works to bring about salvation of individuals without cooperation from the individual.

Calvinism:asserts a purely monergistic view to the exclusion of any synergistic view.

My opponent has his work cut out for him, as the Calvinist viewpoint is inferior to Mainstream Christianity in the following ways:

1). The dangerous consequences for any Calvinistic idea of eternal security if it is wrong.

My opponent needs to not only have a near undoubtable case to win the debate; he also needs to have a near undoubtable case to even hope that such a view would be true.

We can use a practical exercise in logic to see that Calvinism is a logically inferior view of the reality of salvation described by the Scriptures.

Imagine you believe in a view of eternal security that is monergistic. You believe that God will save you no matter what you do. You teach this view to 10,000 people who believe your teachings. Now imagine that you stand before God at the Judgment Seat. God states to you “You were Wrong!” He further states not only were you wrong by never pursuing Holiness but also that everyone you taught believed you. You have 10,000 people lined up behind you and they are all with you. None of you are going to Heaven.

Lets flip that concept though. Lets assume you believed that Holiness was necessary for salvation. You taught it to 10,000 people. You are before God at the Judgment Seat and He states, “You were Wrong! You did not need to be devoted to Holiness, you are all going to heaven, but I am excited so many lived a life as Holy as they could. You have answered the high call of scripture to ‘be holy as God is holy’!”

The consequences for believing and teaching monergistic salvation are very very profound. You would need to be absolutely dead certain you are not leading countless people into Hell.

However, teaching Holiness unto salvation would leave one with little concern to the state of his soul and the soul of those he would teach.

2.) Scripture should be interpreted in light of God’s Justice rather than merely His Sovereignty

A view that holds Gods sovereignty above his justice is an abhorrent view.

We would NOT applaud a Father who beat his children for arbitrary and/or non-meritorious reasons. But a father, who responds to the virtues and vices of his children’s actions and utilizes his sovereignty, to guide and correct them would be honored. The scriptures clearly display a Father who reacts to our positive or negative actions.

- Scripture shows us that God desires us to “Choose” for him.

John 3:16 – 21
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
- I would necessarily point out that this verse, which many would point to as a “key” verse, has the language of “whomever”. Not that “my chosen” “my elected”, are those that do not perish. Second, that belief is needed.
God is shows himself as the reactor to our free will choices as it pertains to salvation in John 3:20-21 . Those who hate the light do not come into the light and those who love the light (and the truth of the light) do. Which, God clearly rewards the action of the person with eternal life.

In fact, rejection of evil and choosing of the good is a nice simplified way of stating repentance, a state which God wishes us to come to BEFORE we can be rewarded with eternal salvation, or stated as the Good News/Gospel. To repent is to change your mind and go a different way, to choose to stop following your bad desires and to choose God's good desires. Character count forbids me to post all scriptures but here is some key ones.

- Scripture also shows us that we “must” choose. We must repent to live within the reality of the Gospel.

Proverbs 1:23
Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.

Isaiah 30:15
This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength, but you would have none of it.

Ezekiel 14:6
“Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!

Mark 6:12
They went out and preached that people should repent.

- The scriptures like the one below, specifically teach against monergism, that is resting in a elect position rather than in action of choice

Luke 3:8
”Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. “

- Jesus here clearly shows that to rest in their election of being Jewish is NOT in keeping with repentance which as stated so many times in scripture the path to salvation.He instead contradicts their thought. God can make anyone be born anywhere he wants, Circumstances of birth do not save you, your actions and the fruit of them are what is important.

3). The superiority of Scriptural Scholarship.

The vast majority of 'Greek' scholars would not support a reformed reading of the bible but by clear consensus conclude a synergistic Gospel. This is not fallacious appeal to majority but it is a valid appeal consensus of the authority.
I am citing the authorities majority consensus. As would occur if one were to cite the consensus for the Big Bang vs. a one off sudden generation theory.

It is resolved that the Gospel is indeed a synergistic Gospel.
Here is a back and forth between James White and Dave Hunt which highlights the idea that Calvinism needs to take a natural reading and through a specific training process teach an exegetical contortionism to be ‘properly’ understood.

http://www.thebereancall.org...

Summary,

We see the indeed the resolution stands false for so many reasons. I due to character limits only was able to cite a couple.

I hope my opponent will give a positive line of argumentation that would meet his burden of proof and something that would be able to resist the floodgate of obvious and natural objections that preclude any reality of a monergistic view.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Reformation

Pro

“I hope my opponent will give a positive line of argumentation that would meet his burden of proof and something that would be able to resist the floodgate of obvious and natural objections that preclude any reality of a monergistic view.”

Wish granted. I thank you for your arguments and will attempt to articulate my rebuttal as clearly and effectively as possible.

1). The dangerous consequences for any Calvinistic idea of eternal security if it is wrong.

It seems you do not understand the basics of Calvinism. I will respond to your hypothetical example.

Imagine you believe in a view of eternal security that is monergistic. You believe that God will save you no matter what you do. You teach this view to 10,000 people who believe your teachings. Now imagine that you stand before God at the Judgment Seat. God states to you “You were Wrong!” He further states not only were you wrong by never pursuing Holiness but also that everyone you taught believed you. You have 10,000 people lined up behind you and they are all with you. None of you are going to Heaven.”

This premise is ridiculous. In the section that I have underlined I am taking note that you are speaking on behalf of God and claiming to know exactly how he would feel or what he would say in your hypothetical situation. Are you God?... Where is your scripture to back up what are supposedly God’s words?

Second of all, there is eternal security in Christ. Do you believe he can lose a Christian? That the hand that saves is not enough to hold you in his grasp? John 10-26-29 “but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep, no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.” And to further back up that a TRUE Christian cannot lose his salvation. 1 John 3:6 “Anyone who continues to live in him will not sin. But anyone who keeps on sinning does not know him or understand who he is.”

In order to understand the concept of Calvinism more clearly you must understand this fact. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL. It is nowhere in scripture.

Ephesians 2:1-5 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins.” Through Christ you are saved, before you were a Christian you were DEAD in your sins, according to that logic it is obvious to conclude that DEAD PEOPLE DON’T MAKE CHOICES

Since the very beginning man has rebelled against God, scorned him, hated him, and fought him since birth. God did not make you evil; THIS was by your own choice. Now you might say, “Oh that’s not true! I never chose to be evil!” Then I say, “Yes you have.” What have you done since birth? You have hated people, lusted, stolen, cheated, lied, sometimes doing these things even subconsciously! You’ve rebelled against God, resented him. You, me, everyone, is guilty of this and why? This is the extent of our depravity. You have no farther to look than yourself. It is infallibly evident and no one can deny they are guilty. This is man’s nature, it is bent towards sin, that is the choice we made and will always make unless someone intervenes on our behalf. A being cannot not act against their nature, God is all-powerful and perfect. He cannot sin or lose control, That is impossible, his nature is omnipotence and perfection. Birds cannot grow fins and swim, hippos cannot grow wings and fly no matter how much they might will it, it cannot happen.

Man can make choices; Pepsi or Coke, red or blue, Playstation or Xbox, sweater or jacket..etc. These choices are within his constraints. Yes, he can choose whether or not to rob a bank and be of moral character, but apart from God’s intervention, sin and self-gratification will always be the forefront of his life, in one way or another. All he wants and has ever wanted is sin, it is impossible to save himself from the Hell he deserves. Before his flood.. Genesis 6:5-6 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. After the flood.. Genesis 8:21 “I will never again curse the ground because of the human race, even though everything they think or imagine is bent toward evil from childhood.”

BUT HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS! Though we were sinners Christ came down and paid the penalty for us that we might be saved. Who is “we” you might ask? Well let’s review.

1) Jesus says in Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

2) 2 Timothy 1:9 For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of time—to show us his grace through Christ Jesus.

3) 1 John 4:10 This is real love—not that we loved God, but thathe loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins.

4)
John 15:16 You didn’t choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name.

5) Romans 8:29 For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

These passages make it infallibly clear. Though we were yet sinners and were all destined for Hell by our own accord. God, as a loving father, pleads, and is patient and long suffering, slow to anger, and draws those destined to be his church near to him while others are allowed to continue their path to destruction, which they had chose themselves. NO person in Hell can ultimately blame God for their punishment, they chose death.

**********THIS PART’S VERY IMPORTANT!************
In the same way NO ONE can confess that they are good enough to choose God. Synergism basically means “Yes God is good and offers a chance for me to be saved, but I’m the one who chose God so I’m good enough all by myself to make that choice.” IF YOU COULD CHOOSE TO BE SAVED WHY WOULD YOU NEED A SAVIOR IN THE FIRST PLACE?? If you were caught out the middle of the ocean, could you choose whether or not a boat would come by to save you? NO! Such a choice is out of your nature to control! If synergism was correct, that would mean Christ would have died, theoretically, FOR NOTHING! If Jesuse died for the sake of the entire world and gave everyone a choice, then everyone could all have the option to choose Hell and proceed to do so! Thereby rendering Christ’s sacrifice worthless! This my friends, is where synergism with an almighty, omnipotent God concludes to make NO LOGICAL SENSE.

2.) Scripture should be interpreted in light of God’s Justice rather than merely His Sovereignty

Would God’s Sovereignty not coincide with his justice? I have spoken enough in my previous argument of God’s justice and sovereignty and it’s obvious they go hand in hand and I do not glorify one over the other so I will now go over my opponent’s analysis of John 3:16.


If you are going to try and use this one bible verse to try and refute all of Reformed theology it will not work. Since my opponent is very keen on original Greek context this should come to no surprise to him, this verse does state “whoever
will believe” but does not go in detail as to HOW they will believe or where this belief comes about. The rest of the bible clearly establishes by their own choice or merit it is impossible, but thankfully… Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” This verse in original Greek context actually implies a particular people not the entire world, though I have not the room to explain, here is an article excellently worded and cited from scripture that better describes this.. http://www.reformationtheology.com...

Regretfully,I ran out of room to finish the majority of my argument. I hope my opponent will respond in a positive way and keep an open mind.



Gileandos

Con

I do thank my opponent for another completed round. I was uncertain that we would have a completed debate.

I was hoping for a positive argument to meet the Burden of Proof. My opponent must give a positive argument for the resolution next round, as it is his last chance to hope to make any positive assertion for the resolution.



Contention 1) The dangerous consequences for any Calvinistic idea of eternal security if it is wrong.

I again reaffirm that the reformed viewpoint cannot adequately represent the Gospel if it inherently denies its very repercussions of the major aspect of the Gospel of eternal salvation into God’s heavenly Kingdom.

Here my opponent asks about how I can speak for God and other ‘offbase’ responses.

This concept is a logical exercise in reviewing necessary consequences. Succinctly restated “what is the logical consequence of either viewpoint if that viewpoint is wrong.”

It is affirmed that the consequences of believing and teaching Holiness or obedience unto salvation offer far more security for believers than any limited or negligent form of salvation.

If God gives a call to action on your part to respond to the Gospel and you do not… you do not get into heaven…

On the other side if there is No call to obedience and yet you obey, you suffer no loss and still get into heaven.

- My opponent argues Freewill does not exist in the Bible! But choices made under constraints is.

I will avoid the great semantic “what is freewill” debate, instead I will point out three things.
First, does my opponent really suggest, as the Jehovah’s Witness do with the word Trinity, that such a concept needs to be the exact word in the Bible?Does my opponent validate the JW’s approach to Biblical concepts?

Second, does my opponent believe that the vast majority of Spirit led and filled mainstream Christians just read what they want into the Bible and that Calvinists have the truth?

Third, most people recognize freewill being defined as the ability to make choices while being constrained to a human body and earth.

- I would holistically respond to my opponents rant by myself clearly statting “that Gospel is only possible if Freewill exists.” I have clearly laid out many scriptures proving just that. All my opponent did was cite predestination verses in response. I will address with the following.

- My opponent also spends a lot of time by citing scriptures taken out of context as we all recognize that predestination exists within a framework of Nations, the Church, gender, birth into a family, and birth into a century…. I don’t know of any Christian theological framework besides Calvinism that does not acknowledge that it is in these ways that we are predestined.

I find it an act of contortion to take scriptures of single details of God’s plan out of context and make them mean something entirely different, to the point of even creating a ‘new’ theological framework.

I fail to see how this would adequately refute my first logical consequence argument much less how it could possibly represent Good News to the entire world.

Imagine if I witnessed two people jump from a cliff both by their choice, and decided to arbitrarily just save one from the ‘hard stop’ at the bottom, when indeed I could have saved both.

When asked why, I merely state, I am sovereign! Would not the question be asked “Ok…. your sovereign over these two peoples circumstances, but did you behave in a ‘Just’ manner?”

Imagine if I ran around ranting:

“Good news! You will be a bloody spot at the end of this. Sure I could save you like this other guy, but instead I chose to only save him and allowed you to suffer the consequences of your choice! Good News!”

In context of the Bible:

Do you really think people would run around proclaiming “Good news everyone! God is unjust!”

I think the ideas conveyed by my opponent leave much to be desired.



- The very important part suggested by my opponent:

My opponent suggests that if we have a freewill choice for or against God we had no need for a savior.

This is a causal fallacy.

It does not necessarily follow that a person who does not have "freewill" is the ONLY person who needs a savior.
To make such a suggestion completely ignores the plethora of other scenarios whereby a person who would willing make a choice for salvation yet be unable or powerless to exercise that choice.

I will give just one for sake of characters:

A slave who would love to be free despite the clear chains and guards that prevent such an action of the slave who has freewill but is contrained.

That is in fact the position held by theological synergists. We are slaves to the devil/world system and unable to be freed until the price is paid by our Kinsman Redeemer (it is why God became a man btw).


Contention 2) Scripture should be interpreted in light of God’s Justice rather than merely His Sovereignty

My opponent here denies the pivotal verse cited by every Christian the world over.

He states that:

“Since my opponent is very keen on original Greek context this should come to no surprise to him, this verse does state “whoever will believe” but does not go in detail as to HOW they will believe or where this belief comes about.”

Despite my opponent’s decidedly errant view of the context we see affirmed within this verse that belief comes about through obedient action of the believer. The Believer must “step into the light”. To not do so is to choose to remain in darkness and choose against God’s saving light.

This one verse does indeed leave little doubt of the errant nature of the reformed view when all other verses are understood to speak only of predestination of people inside of nations, circumstances of their birth such as gender and parent’s.

- But to be fair I posted many verses that spoke of the action of repentance from evil called for throughout the Bible.
Point 2 is affirmed in that many scriptures have a call to obedience necessary and part of the Gospel.

- concerning God’s Justice vs. Soverignty.

I pointed out under point 1 that God’s sovereignty must check his Justice first.

They cannot be considered coequal after reading the Bible. Imagine if people ran around saying God is “in charge Just!” It is nonsensical. God’s sovereignty flows through his Justice. A sovereign action will always be deemed as just or unjust.

Contention 3). The superiority of Scriptural Scholarship.

My opponent seems to not have addressed this point. The vast majority of 'Greek' scholars would not support a reformed reading of the bible but by clear consensus conclude a synergistic Gospel.


Summary,

My opponent has offered NO positive case for the resolution.

C1) We see little cause for concern if we are obedient to the call of Holiness and teach such a call, while the converse does cause us concern if we teach a blind trust in an errant theology for our salvation.

C2) Contention 2 we see that scriptures indeed show that God is just and that the Gospel is the Good News that God is Just.

C3) we see also that the consensus of scholarship clearly holds that the Greek supports a synergistic Gospel.

Considering all of these points and that my opponent has offered no supported argument for the Burden of Pro’s stance of the resolution. We must affirm that the resolution is indeed false.

Debate Round No. 2
The_Reformation

Pro


Unfortunately, my opponent still does not understand Calvinism, and I fail to see how I have not provided a positive argument. He bases his opinions from what he has obviously been taught all his life rather than back what he says by scripture, the ONLY infallible Word. I have presented my case positively AND have backed it through scripture many times with many infallible verses surrounding my argument. This argument was about Calvinism being a more complete representation of the gospel. Rather than argue his point with what scripture says, my opponent has put a majority of his effort dancing around with words and comparing me to Jehovah’s Witnesses, who aren't even christians. My opponent has claimed to win an argument that hasn’t been finished as well as rebutted to my claims by citing personal opinion rather than scripture.


“my opponent asks about how I can speak for God and other ‘offbase’ responses.”


How is questioning the validity of my opponent speaking on behalf of God offbase?.. No one with a pulse would believe you know exactly how God acts or feels simply because you claim it. Back what you say with scripture.


Job 38:4 (NIV) "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"


Isa 29:16 (NIV) "You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?


“It is affirmed that the consequences of believing and teaching Holiness or obedience unto salvation offer far more security for believers than any limited or negligent form of salvation.”


How is it affirmed?? The argument is not over yet! My opponent made no attempt to support this claim or argue against mine with scripture when this statement was made. Don’t sway your vote by claiming to know your decision is right. Back what you say with scripture. And no, predestination does not mean nationalities/ birthrights/ if that was the case, then according to my opponent’s logic only Jews go to heaven. Since they were called chosen from Abraham’s birthright and nationality.



“does my opponent believe that the vast majority of Spirit led and filled mainstream Christians just read what they want into the Bible and that Calvinists have the truth?”


Yes, a vast majority of today’s mainstream church is blind. Today’s modern church has NO emphasis on God, rather they teach self-help and goodness already in yourself. Hardly, if any, repentance.


Here’s what modern day “spirit-filled” churches have resulted in..


(SEE Youtube videos IN ORDER FROM TOP)


Todd Bentley. Horrible false teaching.


Joel Osteen. Self-help “pastors” afraid to proclaim the Gospel.


Michael Guglielmucci, a pastor faking cancer to boost sales of his song, and promote false healing and hide his addiction to pornography.


Benny Hinn, another unverified healer making millions off “mainstream Christians” as you call them.


First of all, what is mainstream Christianity to you? This corporate mass of Arminian teachers and organizations that value the amount of people and the money they give rather than preaching Jesus?


Since when does “mainstream” automatically mean what is right? Arminians/Assemblies of God are NOT the mainstream church. You have Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Charismatic, Puritan-derived, all different. I happen to love Hillsong Church, yes they are a part of Assemblies of God. Yes, we probably disagree doctrinally. Yes they do some things I don’t agree with. They still are brothers in Christ. My point being, my opponent claims to know what is right, WITH NO SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP, even going so far as to say my scripture is “out of context”, a cliché excuse. How can verses from all around various points of the Bible, written by Jew and Gentile, all coinciding in light of scripture, how can they all be out of context?.. That’s a sad excuse to pick out verses you don’t like and only read what you want, a typical flaw of Arminian theology. Here’s a “3:16” verse I know my opponent will enjoy. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” ALL scripture.


“I fail to see how this would adequately refute my first logical consequence argument much less how it could possibly represent Good News to the entire world.”


You’re a sinner. God still loves you. God calls you from your path of destruction and makes a better way for you, gives you a new heart and makes you want to be like him. Sounds like Good News to me.


If I saved myself then that means I was already good enough to begin with, I didn’t need God. How is that good news?


Imagine if I witnessed two people jump from a cliff both by their choice, and decided to arbitrarily just save one from the ‘hard stop’ at the bottom, when indeed I could have saved both. When asked why, I merely state, I am sovereign! Would not the question be asked “Ok…. your sovereign over these two peoples circumstances, but did you behave in a ‘Just’ manner?”


First off all, NO ONE would have the authority nor should they the audacity to call God out on something. He is God. He knows what is good and what is just, my opponent does not. And a “just” matter? Here’s a REAL everyday situation.


TWO CHRISTIAN TEENAGERS GET IN A HORRIBLE CAR ACCIDENT. ONE LIVES, THE OTHER DIES.


Now explain to me where your superficial ideal of God’s justice is, and then explain it to the dead teen’s grieving family. According to my opponent’s example, God was unjust in letting one live and letting the other die. After all, surely God could’ve saved both! Of course he could’ve, so then why did one die? Here’s your best answer on behalf of Scripture.


Romans 8:28 “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”


Again, “to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” We don’t always know why God allows what he allows to happen! We don’t need to know we are not God. There is hope in Romans 8:28 That all things, good and bad, work together for our good. He is a good God, He knows everything that has, is, will happen and knows everything about every single person who existed, exists or will exist. OF COURSE he has a plan! If he didn’t he wouldn’t be the creator.


My opponent’s idea that you shape your own destiny is flawed and looked at from a human, mortal perspective. When Adam and Eve sinned or when Lucifer rebelled do you think God, in his all-knowing nature, was surprised? NO! Jesus was there, eternally in the beginning of creation and already his appointed task (salvation of man) was known to him before he had even made man. God himself was destined. Ultimately the life you lead up until judgment was already known to God. God is eternal, everything has been decided, from man’s perspective it doesn’t seem that way because we can’t comprehend God! Nor do we need to. He is God, he is loving and just.


To conclude,


“My opponent seems to not have addressed this point. The vast majority of 'Greek' scholars would not support a reformed reading of the bible but by clear consensus conclude a synergistic Gospel.”


Another baseless claim. Back this claim up by citing the Greek scholars you are evidently in contact with, or the source your argument stems from.


I believe I have provided above adequate burden of proof on my end, and a positive argument in this round and previous rounds that Reformed Theology is a True Representation of The Gospel. I leave the deciding vote in the hands of the voters and thank everyone, including my opponent, who took their time to review this debate.


Gileandos

Con

I do again thank my opponent for another completed round.

To recap:

Contention 1) The dangerous consequences for any Calvinistic idea of eternal security if it is wrong.

Here my opponent does nothing to detract from the logical exercise of reviewing necessary consequences.

He just asserts that scripture must be used in every line of argumentation.

Though I disagree that logic cannot be used in dealing with a God who created logic, that does not mean we cannot know what scripture states about what God will say at the Judgement seat.

Matthew 25:23

23`His lord said to him, Well done, servant, good and faithful, over a few things thou wast faithful, over many things I will set thee; enter into the joy of thy lord.

And

Revelation 21:

7 He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.

The clarity of scripture here shows us the consequence of teaching Holiness and service will only please God. This argument is based in logic and indeed scripture. I am sorry my opponent is so unfamiliar with the teachings of ALL infallible scriptures.

I quoted a fount of scriptures in Round 1 that teach repentance that precedes the teaching of Revelation chapter 21. My opponent ignored those verses then quoted some he felt detracted from my contentions.

The infallibility of scripture is not at issue, but the CLEAR fallibility of my opponent’s scriptural interpretation is at issue.


- Retort 1 addressed; I quote my opponent:

“Yes, a vast majority of today’s mainstream church is blind. Today’s modern church has NO emphasis on God, rather they teach self-help and goodness already in yourself. “

He cites a couple of anecdotal “bad” pastors. Though I do not necessarily agree they are bad, but they certainly do not hold to a Calvinist interptetation.

Here he commits a causal fallacy again.

It does not necessarily follow they are wrong to teach self-help and goodness if the scriptures teach such action is necessary.

It only follows as “wrong” if my opponent can “Prove” Calvinism is correct. He has not even attempted to do so. He only attempted to prove I was incorrect.

But we can see this is a non-issue.

We can see clearly that Calvinistic teachers are fallible and we cannot assume they are infallible. My opponent did nothing to show his interpretation was correct.

http://www.foxnews.com...

- Retort 2 addressed; To quote my opponent:

“Since when does “mainstream” automatically mean what is right?”

My opponent for the second round has not understood the assertion. When you are the minority view, when you are making an assertion and when you are instigating the debate, the Burden of Proof rests upon you. You compound that by stating you, a self-convicted fallible human are infallibly interpreting the scriptures.You have to prove with beyond a reasonable doubt that your position is resolved as true.

The Mainstream Christians, who all hold to the infallibility of scripture and assert a proper natural reading as a superior process of interpretation, to the neglect and denial of a Calvinist interpretation include:

5 Patriarchs, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Methodists, Salvation Army.

The non-mainstream but ‘mainline’ protestant denominations who all hold to the infallibility of scripture and assert a proper natural reading as a superior process of interpretation, to the neglect and denial of a Calvinist interpretation include:

Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anabaptists and even Quakers.

These denominations are not “inherently right” in their interpretation but my opponent needed to assert a positive argument to show they are not accurate. Even if he proves I am wrong he by no means proves the resolution to be true.

- retort 3 Good News: I quote my opponent:

“You’re a sinner. God still loves you. God calls you from your path of destruction and makes a better way for you, gives you a new heart and makes you want to be like him. Sounds like Good News to me.”

Except that for at least some, at worst most, no such Good News is in view, in your view.

To be a Calvinist, one must also ignore infallible scripture as John’s declaration here:

1 John Chapter 2:

1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an [a]Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the [b]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

In reality, Calvinism is a Good News/Bad News situation that attempts to abrogate the scriptures, like John’s epistle, based upon a framework of interpretation that contorts and confuses the students of Calvinism.

-“ He is God. He knows what is good and what is just, my opponent does not.”

My opponent rants for several paragraphs about God having a plan and who am I to question it? Who am I to question whether God is just or not. But this is a moot point because God does not elect people in the manner that Calvinists suggest. God does have a just system of election, He predestined Nations not individuals. Romans Chp 9-11

Contention 2) Scripture should be interpreted in light of God’s Justice rather than merely His Sovereignty
Here my opponent does not respond to the numbers of scriptures I posted in Round 1. He continues to yell for scriptures but just outright ignores the scriptures that call for an action of repentance from the Believer. He seems to read John 3:16, make a denial of the following context. I point the correct context to him in round 2 and he tacitly concedes he was wrong. He still completely ignored the infallible repentance verses that followed.

I am baffled as to the reason there was no response to these scriptures and actually the opposite of a call from my opponent wanting scriptures from me.
- We see that it is affirmed that God’s Justice is the predominant Divine trait and the natural reading of God’s Infallible scriptures. God’s sovereignty is not ‘equal’ to his Justice but that the scriptures through repentance teach that God’s sovereignty does not overrule a Just way of dealing with us.

Contention 3). The superiority of Scriptural Scholarship.

I have no idea how my opponent can be so largely unaware of that every other denomination is synergistic. The idea that somehow it is NOT obvious that more Greek scholarship is arrayed against a monergistic view is a ‘head in the sand’ refutation attempt.

The question is ‘how does my opponent not know that the consensus of the world’s Greek Scholarship is against the reformed tradition’s view”?


We see I have offered to refute the resolution 3 powerful arguments that with stood all poor attempts of refutation from my opponent.

C1) We saw that indeed Logic supports a synergistic interpretation of scripture

C2) The scriptures through John 3:16 teach Belief followed by action on the believers part by stepping into the ‘light’ of the Truth. I also gave 6 additional verses that show repentence is required of the Believer.

John 3:16 shows God desires action on our Part:

Proverbs 1:23; Isaiah 30:15; Ezekiel 14:6; Mark 6:12; Luke 3:8 all teach that God must have the action of repentance. Scriptures affirm a synergistic approach.

C3) Indeed monergism cannot muster the support of consensus of the majority of Greek Scholars. Few indeed, only the reformed tradition assert any sort of monergistic view of scripture.

We can certainly conclude that the Resolution is false.
Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
"You guys are bullying the results. The comments have been saturated with so much opposition to Pro's argument, that anyone who dares to vote against him would be ostracised."

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't care either way who wins or that I'm supposedly "opposed" to Pro's argument (how would you know that in any case?). People here call out each on perceived superficial votes all the time; it has to with being against you or Pro especially (at least in my case). I didn't even know who you guys were until I looked at this debate, so I had very little reason to be against you or Pro.
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Wiploc,

I really don't feel I ever need to justify myself to you. If you absolutely feel I voted in error, then report my profile. I'll gladly explain my position to the admin. You on the other hand, carry absolutely no authority. The fact that you feel you can counter my judgement only speaks to your audacious superiority complex. You think your smarter. You think you should have final say...I think your being aggressive. In fact the entire argument you posted about me being slanderous, lying and bullying is exactly what I accused you of. You seemed to shift the burden of guilt by the same accusation.

I don't need your benefit of the doubt. I don't need your permission. I don't need your criticism and you've spoken not a single bit of gentle guidance into this debate, so I certainly don't need your rhetoric. Please distance yourself from my debates in the future. Your retaliatory voting on my other debates lack virtue. If we are in a heated argument, it is an obvious sign of aggression for you to find my debates and vote against me with garbage lies. You're a poisonous cheater.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Wiploc wrote to Neonix:
: When you say,
: : : : I just want to speak about God. I picked this side to advance my ability to defend the faith.
: you suggest that you were right the first time: you voted for Pro because you agreed with him, not
: because he did the better job.

It occurs to me that the above could be a typo. Neonix could have intended to write that he picked this *site* (debate.org) to defend his faith, rather than that he picked this *side* (Pro's side of this debate).
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
: I stated that I voted to agree with him before the debate. You cannot penalize him because I voted
: on an acceptable criteria. The option exists...it just doesn't grant points.

Really, you could have stopped while you were ahead. When you say things like,
: : : The debate is 100% supposed to convince the audience. In fact, the voting criteria that default
: : : declares the victor is entitled:"Who made more convincing arguments?"
you suggest that anyone who is still a Calvinist after the debate should vote for Pro. In other words, you seem to still be arguing for voting your prejudices.

When you say,
: : : I think the Bible is the only reference thats usable.
you suggest that you even voted sources based on your prejudice.

When you say,
: : : I just want to speak about God. I picked this side to advance my ability to defend the faith.
you suggest that you were right the first time: you voted for Pro because you agreed with him, not because he did the better job.

So it's no wonder that your vote is still countered.

: You are out of line.

I don't know why you think that. I was just trying to help.

I'm probably done trying to help. I don't need your belligerent response to our gentle guidance. Some people enjoy that tone of voice. I don't.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Neonix wrote:
: Wiploc, I keep explaining that you misunderstood me.

I believe your point is that you "voted" that you "voted" that you agreed with Pro before the debate because you did in fact agree with Pro before the debate. That's cool. You got feedback because we understood that to be your reason for voting that Pro had the more convincing argument, which would not be cool.

You can see why we thought that's what you did. And you can see, I assume, why that is wrong. And if you don't think it is generally wrong, you can look where I directed you and see that it is would violate the rules of this website.

You appeared to have voted for illegitimate reasons, out of mere prejudice; so we explained what was wrong with that; so you may have tried to explain that you didn't really do that; so we ought to be all cool with each other now. No hard feelings on either side.

Instead, you resorted to slander, lies, and bullying. Not cool.

: I went line by line through the criteria.

Eh. The question was, "Who made more convincing arguments." Your first answer was that you agreed with Pro before the debate. You amended that to, "Pro maintained his position as being more true." Yes, Pro said his position was more true, but Con said his position was more true. So that hardly seems like a reason to vote for one over the other. You can forgive us if giving you benefit of the doubt is the best we can do for you at this point.

=== continued ===
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Wiploc, I keep explaining that you misunderstood me. I went line by line through the criteria. I stated that I voted to agree with him before the debate. You cannot penalize him because I voted on an acceptable criteria. The option exists...it just doesn't grant points. You are out of line.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Reformation wrote:
: I really put everything I had into the argument and still [don't] see how I failed to produce a
: positive argument,

Would you like me to walk you thru it?
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Reformation wrote:
: you guys talk about voting for who has the best argument but even Mr. Infidel is guilty of this too.
: He voted Con just to retaliate against Neonix, he said so in his reason for voting. You guys really
: don't care to follow even your own rules.. You guys are just ruthless.

Neonix said he voted because he was a Calvinist before the debate even started. So countering his vote was _enforcing_ the rules, not violating them. If somebody votes against you because, "I don't like people whose names start with the letter R," then you can expect somebody to counter that vote too. It's not ruthlessness, nor retribution, it's just courtesy.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
er it seemed to cut off..
What do you not find convincing about the 3 contentions? Can you start with C1?
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
@The Reformation,
I have been very careful to address only arguments. I have no idea why you are getting angry.

I already explained what a Positive argument is and why you have the Burden of Proof in this debate. The burden of Proof for Calvinism is compounded by C1 and C3 within the debate.

I realize you a new to debate. Please stop getting angry at the messenger. I will attempt to explain again. If you make a positive 'exclusionary' claim like "Milk is the Best source of Calcium". You must show why that is True. You have to given an argument that makes all comers false. Now if I take a position of "Ice Cream is the best source of calcium" you defeating me, never proves Milk is the best.

You never made this argument. To compound that you never even showed any merit to the idea My 3 contentions were wrong. You in fact, displayed an inability to understand them. That is not my fault.

We can 'for instance' your videos. I in no way made fun of them. You quoted me correctly, but no one would walk away thinking I made fun of them. Joel Osteen for example: Him on Larry King asserting that Jesus is not the only way, is a Mainstream Christian belief system.

We teach that thousands to millions +people who never heard the name of 'Christ' go to an intermediate state and come to know Jesus there. From John Wesley to the five patriarchs. None of those people make a 'false teacher' or even a well known 'false teacher' on your say so alone. You must prove they are false teachers. I agree with Joel Osteen here. The only person I have ever heard rant about Joel is John Piper (a calvinist) and I would consider him a false teacher. In fact, Calvinism is a false teaching by mainstream standards.
I can even cite Billy Graham mirroring this mainstream teaching.

I by no means 'make fun of something' by agreeing with it! To the contrary.

What do you not find the 3 contentions I put forward convinci
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
The_ReformationGileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate wasn't even close, in my opinion. Pro did not have a coherent argument, and certainly didn't use the Scriptures to support his views (only a vain attempt to try and prove his opponent wrong). Trying to show that modern preachers are wrong because they disagree with you doesn't work unless you show that what you believe is correct and why they are wrong.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
The_ReformationGileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Neonix.
Vote Placed by Wandile 5 years ago
Wandile
The_ReformationGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro never really makes an adequate attempt to prove the resolution correct. All he has done is attempt to prove that everything else around him (all other interpretations of the gospel) are wrong. The fallacy of this is that proving that all around you are wrong does not inadvertently declare you as the best representation. The fact is all may be just as wrong as each other. Secondly Con exposes the fallacy of Calvinistic predestination through his 'falling of the cliff' example. Con wins
Vote Placed by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
The_ReformationGileandosTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
The_ReformationGileandosTied
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: RFD in comments.