The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Paradox_7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible Teaches Predestination And Salvation By Faith Alone

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...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,304 times Debate No: 29448
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Con

Being Catholic, I am opposed to the resolution. My opponent will begin by presenting his arguments in defense of Calvinism.
Paradox_7

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for challenging me to this debate. I look forward to an edifying exchange, and hope that I can do justice to the doctrines of Grace, and the Gospel of Christ, which is the the only source of our salvation.


My job in this debate will be to simply prove that Predestination, and Faith alone for salvation, are not only taught in the bible, but the primary tenants of the Gospel itself.

What is Predestination?


Though there are many denominations of Christianity, there are but 2 forms of belief. The synergistic form, and the Monergistic form.


Synergism[1] - The position of those who hold that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom.


Monergism[2] - The position in Christian theology of those who believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, works to bring about effectually the salvation of individuals through spiritual regeneration without cooperation from the individual.


My opponent, is a syngergist, and believes that God cannot save someone, unless they cooperate; unless the accept his gift of grace. This, is what we call, a condition. Though God may know who will be saved, he plays no active part aside from providing to these individuals a gift upon acceptance. Once they choose God, they are accepted. In other words, they save themselves.


I hold to the monergist view. Not only does God not require acceptance, but is fully aware that man is incapable of acceptance without being regenerated. I believe this act of regeneration, is a free act. One that is not willed nor desired by those who receive it. Not only is this gift unmerited, but it is also predetermined.


Predestination, is the act of God using his sovereignty and mercy to choose whom would be saved, and who would not. Not, that God knew who would accept him and who wouldn't, but that he knew no man would accept him, and out of love chose to save some, and reserved them to be called his children in Christ.


Since this debate is about whether or not such a thing is taught in the bible, I will provide a few passages which clearly establish predestination as true.

Rom 8:29-30
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.
(NKJV)

2 Thess 2:13
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
(NIV)

Eph 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace
(NKJV)

Eph 1:11
In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will
(NKJV)


In this debate, we must both consider the word of God to be infallible and harmonious. Since this is so, we cannot simply discredit predestination, at the cost of creating contradiction. If my opponent fails to reconcile these passages with his synergistic beliefs, we must conclude that his position is incorrect, and if I fail to do that same, I expect my opponent to be awarded the points.


The bible, clearly teaches predestination, and I believe this will be the least challenging part of my position to demonstrate, so I will proceed on to the second matter: Faith Alone.


Faith alone, or faith + [insert work here]

The Synergist believes, that God expects man to react to his offer. That his grace is based on the condition that man accepts his son, and places his trust in him. At first look, this may seem like faith alone is what saves, but when we take a closer look, we see that faith becomes a work, a LAW; an act of man.


The monergist believes that man is incapable of accepting God, and incapable of faith without being renewed by God; being given a heart of flesh. This belief stems from the doctrine of Total Depravity. Man is utterly, and totally depraved of righteousness. Counter-intuitive? Very much, and intentionally so.


One can dispute this, and say "well I see much good in the world!", but I remind you, we are discussing whether or not such a thing is taught in the bible. So let us return then to what the word of God says:


Romans 3
10 As it is written:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."


To cut straight to it, accepting God is "good", Faith is "good", and good is something NO ONE does. So then, does no one have faith? Not so, but it is by the will of God, that men have faith, and it is by this faith that men are saved.


Romans 12
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.


So, can a person repent and believe before having faith? Does that even make sense? Not at all. Regeneration is faith, and this is an act of God, not man. God distributes faith to those he predestined. As Christ says in John:

16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

So we have it shown, that God distributes faith, but, is this all that is required for salvation?

Rom. 3:28-30 - "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Rom. 4:5 - "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1 - "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Gal. 2:16 - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal. 3:5-6 - "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Eph. 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."


For those who don't know, to be justified, is to be declared righteous, and to be declared righteous, is to be saved.


Acceptance is a work, belief is a work, and even faith is a work when it is a condition from God to man. Since God distributes faith, it is not a work, and since it is not a work nor a condition then it is Grace, which is FREE. In order for grace to be grace, it must be free.


As you can see above, I've provided much scripture to support both Predestination and Faith alone for salvation. I look forward to my opponents argument in the next round, and hope you can see the obviousness of both these teachings, and vote PRO.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...(theology)

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Con

I admit I will backtrack on the resolution. I believe that predestination is taught in the bible, because the exact word is indeed used. However, I don't believe that my opponent's interpretation of predestination is taught by the Bible. Hopefully my opponent my forgives my naivety. That being said...

My opponent is also correct that I hold the Synergistic view. I believe that God offers salvation to everyone, and whoever accepts it, is saved.

I believe in predestination, as in, God predestines all men to go to heaven, upon the one condition that they accept the grace required to do so. My opponent believes that God predestines certain people to go to heaven, unconditionally and regardless of their will, and others are predestined to go to hell, unconditionally and regardless of their will. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Using my interpretation of predestination, the following verses do not contradict with my views:

Rom 8:29-30
2 Thess 2:13
Eph 1:3-6
Eph 1:11

Now it is simply a matter of whose interpretation is right: Mine, or Cons? Con's authority to interpret scripture comes from the belief in Sola Scriptura, which states that scripture, and scripture alone, is formally sufficient. There are a couple problems with this stance. First of all, the notion of Sola Scriptura is never supported by the scriptures themselves; in fact, it is directly refuted:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15 - KJV)

How can my opponent believe that scriptures are formally sufficient when the scriptures themselves claim otherwise?

The second problem with my opponent's belief in Sola Scriptura is that the scriptures were given to him by the Catholic Church. Since my church compiled the scriptures and gave them to him, how can he claim that the scriptures are sufficient without the Church?

My opponent says that "The bible, clearly teaches predestination, and I believe this will be the least challenging part of my position to demonstrate", and I do, as a matter of fact, concede this point. Out of ignorance, I worded the resolution poorly. My mistake.

My opponent's claim of Sola Fide can be refuted with one verse:

"by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24 - KJV)

Ba Dum Tss.
Paradox_7

Pro

Paradox_7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Con

All arguments extended.
Paradox_7

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for extending the arguments. I apologize for the delay.

Since we both agree now that Predestination is in fact taught in the bible, we will be redirecting the focus of this resole to our positions on what predestination actaully is. As my opponent stated above, he believes that God predestines whom will choose him; or choose to accept his Grace.

The issue that is immediately present, is that calling such a thing predestination is incredibly inaccurate. Lets examine the deffinition of Predestination, from the Greek word: Proorizo.

Strongs - Predetermine: - Determine before, ordain, predestinate

Thayer's - To predetermine, decide beforehand; in the NT of God decreeing from eternity; to foreordain, appoint beforehand

Websters - Purposed or determined previously

So, as we can see here, these are all things that are done priorto a choice made by man. Also, as it says in Ephesians 1, God predestined those from before creation. So, before anyone made any decisions. Now, my opponent will undoubtedly refer to foreknwledge.

God predestined to save some whom he knew would choose to accept his Grace.

But, this is not the case.

Romans 9
1 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 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."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

As we can see here in Romans, God witholds the right to choose whom he will save. Not only that, but it doesn't depend on the desires of man or their effort.

This falls in line with what we see in Romans 3

No one seeks God. No one does good, not even one.

Accepting God, is good, and good is not done by man, therefore no one accepts God. Which means God chooses whom he will save, inspite of there not having sought for him.

Grace, is unconditional, and undeserved. It makes no sense to say that there is a condition for the unconditional.

I really do not want to continue repeating all of the scriptures that I posted earlier, but my opponent must address them if he plans on advancing his position.

Also, if you take note to this that I said in the last post:

In this debate, we must both consider the word of God to be infallible and harmonious. Since this is so, we cannot simply discredit predestination, at the cost of creating contradiction. If my opponent fails to reconcile these passages with his synergistic beliefs, we must conclude that his position is incorrect, and if I fail to do that same, I expect my opponent to be awarded the points.

So far my opponent merely established a clear contradiction; especially in regards to sola fide.

I will not address his arguments about sola scriptura, because this not what we are debating.

In regards to James 2:24, my oppoent merely misunderstands my position. Firstly, there are different uses for the word justify.

1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of his law

2) to demonstrate or vindicate.

James 2 is a form of the latter. We demonstrate our faith in God to others, by our good works. The frit of our faith is good works. This does not mean a person is saved by their good works, but that a saved person will have good works.

I believe we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Con

God predestined to save some whom he knew would choose to accept his Grace. None of my opponent's arguments refute this fact, considering that God exists outside of time.

My opponent's claim that we are saved by "faith alone, by not by a faith that is alone" is illogical and makes no sense.
Paradox_7

Pro

Romans 9 clearly states that God chooses whom he will elect, not based on their will or desires. This goes hand in hand with the fact the man never seeks God, nor does he choose to accept Gods grace.

Romans 3:10
10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.

Choosing to accept his grace is seeking God.

John 15:16
16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

God chose whom he would save, they did not choose him.

Romans 12:3
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.

The only reason we have faith, is because God distributed it to us.

Ephesians 2:5
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

We were once dead in sin, and this is when we were saved, by grace. Dead in sin means, we were not able to make a choice of the living. If God grace was a feast, and we were literally dead, then this food wouldn't be desirable to us. God chose to give us life, so that it became desireable.


My opponent doesn't seem to understand what Grace is. It's free and unmerited. If there is a condition, it cannot be grace.

So, my opponets position on Predestination is obviously fallicious. Since, there can be no conditions to Gods grace, including acceptance of ones own free-will (Rom. 9). Especially since no man would do such a thing when they are dead in sin.


Faith that isn't alone makes perfect sense. Our faith will producse good works; love, patience, kindness, etc. These things aren't what save us, but they do come with true faith.



Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Con

Grace is free and unmerited. This doesn't change the fact that it isn't forced upon people, but rather, accepted by them.

My opponent still holds on to the illogical claim that "faith alone" and "faith that is alone" are two different things.
Paradox_7

Pro

I don't believe my opponent is even trying any more.

He hasn't addressed any of the scriptures I presented, he hasn't made any real argument, so by default I should win this debate.

However, I'll make a few more points, even though I'm repeating myself.

Con says that Grace isn't forced upon people. But, the passage from Romans 9 says that it is; in Romans 12 it says God distributed faith to us; and in John 15:16 it says that we didn't choose, HE did.

My opponent believe God is just a beggar. He can't save anyone, he can only ask for them to be saved.

Like if a parent saw their child running into a busy street. If the parent was God, then CON's God could only beg the child not to go any further, he would give reasons not to, but he couldn't save the child.. so if the child doesn't listen to him, the child will certainly die. While, my God wouldn't simply sit there and let his children make that fatal decison, he see the child has made his choice, and that choice is death. So instead of letting the infant get oblitorated by an on coming car, like a good parent, he chase after them, grabs them, and actively saves them from there foolish choice. His love for them is greater than their foolish will.




There seems not to be an argument against Faith alone, but not faith that is alone, except his bare assertion that it doesn't make sense. Which I've already cleared up, if it even needed to be.

Faith = trust, belief. Faith is given to us by Grace, from God. This gift, is what justifies us and sanctifies us.

Since we have Faith, given by God, whom no one can remove from his hand, we are saved. Our Faith, however, creates in us, the desire to do good. It provides emperical evidence for our neighbor, that we indeed have faith. Our faith isn't simply a statement, but an active faith that produces good fruit.

This isn't was saves us, but is a result of our salvation.

Faith alone, but not faith that is alone.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
I would've voted on Pro's behaf because I actually agree with his point of view on predestination. He gave a lot of Scriptures, insightful thoughts with a good argument. It seemed though that Con really didn't know what to say to Pro's rebuttals and comments. Although I did see Con approve of predestination to some degree, but hold's more of a free will on the people's end which is not the case. The concept of predestination is that God chooses (elects) His Church not the other way around or both ways. Anyways, this was a good debate and I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
It means that I extend my arguments from the previous round down into the newest round, since my opponent failed to respond to them by forfeiting.
Posted by JonK 4 years ago
JonK
what does "all arguments extended" mean?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
It's cool.
Posted by Paradox_7 4 years ago
Paradox_7
Sorry about the forfeit..

You can proceed with any arguments you have if you'd like, or forfeit as well and I'll just pick it up in the next round.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
YYW, I know and I'm ashamed of it. I've been letting people get under my skin and arguing very unprofessionally.

I'll try to do better, thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Garrett, your views (except the issue of predestination, doctrine, etc.), approaches (how you interact with people), methods (of reasoning) and arguments (for or against things you think to be correct or incorrect) are more characteristically associated with the Southern Baptist church than the Catholic church. This is just an observation, btw.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
God predestines. How exactly He does so is still highly disputed, and I'm not sure if I can explain it because I'll probably end up a heretic if I try, seeing as I don't really understand Thomism and Molinism.

Sufficient grace is for everyone. I think Molinism says that sufficient grace becomes efficacious grace when the person cooperates with it, and that God orchestrated everything so that the elect will be in a situation where they will choose to cooperate with it.

I think Thomism says that the elect receive more grace, or something like that. I'm probably strawmanning it. Feel free to ignore my whole post, because I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
AlwaysMoreThanYou, I still don't understand lol.

YYW, I meant, how do I sound like a Baptist?
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
*more
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
GarretKadeDupreParadox_7Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm somewhat embarrased to admit my vote for COn since Pro seemed to give more effort, but he had a large BoP and I Con's refutation, although small in character, was sufficient in content to refute Pro's weak case- Con's case, as such, was more modest and therefore the easiest to defend. Most of what Pro said was consistent with Con's view. I will also admit bias, nevertheless I tried to be objective and this is my genuine vote.