The Instigator
Jukebox101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ecarg
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Conditional Election

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 120231
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Jukebox101

Con

This will be an acceptance round. I will be arguing against conditional election (the belief that God looks down the corridors of time and chooses those that he foresees will have faith in him) in favor of unconditional election (the belief that God chooses for salvation people not based on anything they do, Hence unconditional).
Ecarg

Pro

I accept your debate for the soul purpose of learning and growing in my beliefs and worldview. I do not agree with you about God "looking down the corridors of time". He didn't have to look, He already knew. Also I am a bit undecided about my beliefs on faith. I know that it is a free gift given by God and that it is the substance of things hoped for, The evidence of things not seen. I am not sure when God gives it to someone or who He gives it to. I have not studied this quite yet and will do my best to study as much as possible on this topic and that of condition and unconditional election (which neither one can exist without faith). I want you to know that I will make mistakes and may claim things I assume but have not studied, Please accept my apologies now. I will debate based on knowledge that I have gained from wise elders and also knowledge I hope to obtain.
Debate Round No. 1
Jukebox101

Con

Since I am aware that you disagree with unconditional election, I will be providing pieces of evidence that support it in this round.

I will fully define unconditional election: God does not foresee an action or condition on our part that induces Him to save us. Rather, Election rests on God’s sovereign decision to save whomever He is pleased to save.

Conditional election is the view that man’s “free will” decision to accept Christ as Savior is the basis for his/her election.

You will need to "debunk" this idea from logic and scripture.


"I do not agree with you about God 'looking down the corridors of time. ' He didn't have to look, He already knew. "

- This is a needless distinction to make. Of course he knew. I'm not saying he had to look; rather, I am saying that conditional election proponents usually concede it is an action he performed to elect people. If you disagree with that, You would be affirming that God doesn't act, Which is problematic. The point is conditional election proposes that God elected people based on his foreknowledge of their faith in him, Which I am going to attempt to disprove.

Point 1. Conditional Election is in disagreement with John 10:26-27.

In John 10:26-27, Jesus says, [KJV] "But ye believe not, Because ye are not of my sheep, As I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, And I know them, And they follow me. . . "
-Conditional election says that people who believe are chosen as His sheep because they believe, But the Bible actually says just the opposite. The reason they believe and have faith is that they are His sheep. Election is not conditional upon man’s acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior but is instead the cause of his acceptance.

Point 2. If election is based on us, And what we do, We get the glory, Because we "chose" God.

Conditional election leads to the conclusion that God’s actions in election are dependent upon man’s free will choices. This view of election and salvation makes God subject to the whims of men and their decisions, And man’s will becomes essentially the cause and effect of salvation.

Point 3. Verses such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:29-30 are not in conflict with unconditional election

Con and others reading this debate can look up the verses mentioned above.

We are in agreement that God foreknows who will be saved and who will not. "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father" is not the only part of election. Ephesians 1:4-5 states, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, That we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, According to the purpose of His will. ” This says that God predestined us for adoption According to the Purpose of His will. So, It is not just foreknowledge; he didn't predestine us just because of his foreknowledge of our actions.

Point 4. Romans 9:11 strongly supports unconditional election

Romans 9:11 states, ". . . the children not yet being born, Nor having done any good or evil, That the purpose of God according to election might stand, Not of works but of Him who calls. " This section of Scripture clearly teaches that election is NOT conditioned on anything man has done or will do but that it is solely based on the divine will of a sovereign God [so does the Ephesians verse given above].


With unconditional election, ALL of the glory is given to God. He didn't elect us based on something, We did, Or based on something he knew we would do, But for his infinite, Impartial, And glorification purposes. We can rest in knowing that God didn't decide to save us because we were smarter, Better, Or more spiritual than others, But because of His divine purposes.

I look forward to your rebuttal and arguments.



Ecarg

Pro

My Refutations to Your Points:
"Conditional election is the view that man"s "free will" decision to accept Christ as Savior is the basis for his/her election. You will need to "debunk" this idea from logic and scripture.
If God chose certain people to save, Then why would He go through all the trouble of creating sin (you believe God created sin), Making sure His elect hear His Word, Giving them faith, Regenerating their hearts, Create trials for them to go through for the process of sanctification all for His glory when He could simply create the elect He desires and let them glorify Him as they would ultimately do anyway if He went through all the trouble mentioned above. Why would He go through the trouble of even inflicting pain on Himself on the cross? He does not have to do this if He could just snap His fingers and POOF! Perfect, Untainted humans are worshiping at His feet. Your belief in only election without free will is not logical. God is logical. He is the Creator of logic. Also, God did not have to give the world the Bible. He could easily snap His fingers (once more) and regenerate all the souls of His elect.

I will use your Scripture references to back up my points above as well as "debunk" your other arguments. I have a few extra to give though.

"Point 1. Conditional Election is in disagreement with John 10:26-27. "
In the context (John 9-10), Jesus has been talking to the Pharisees which He mentions as Jews in other verses as well as the one before John 10:26. These Pharisees did not and would not believe that Jesus was the Christ, The Son of God. Jesus knew their hearts and his righteous anger was kindled against them for the yoke of bondage they placed upon his people.

"The reason they believe and have faith is that they are His sheep. "
Why would God select a group of people, But then subject them to the exercise of having to hear God"s word (the Bible, The gospel) to "activate" their election or make it sure? God"s word is clear that you must hear to obtain faith. Using logic and the bible what justification can you give that explains why God needs this extra step of a person "hearing" God"s Word to secure that person if he has already elected him before the foundation of the world? If you submit that "receiving a gift" of salvation is a work, Do you also submit that "hearing" is a work that is a necessary pre-requisite for salvation?

"Point 2. If election is based on us, And what we do, We get the glory, Because we "chose" God. "
A true Christian would never suggest their salvation is based on themselves so I dismiss the idea that conditional election leads to this view. This boils down to whether or not free will is a "work". If we take such a legalistic approach to works as you suggest here we see a development (spiraling down) into the legalistic practices of the Pharisees (which I remind you whose practices were despised of Jesus). Example/Symbolic Story: I read a book on the Sabbath day and am presented with two endings to the book, One ends in destruction and one great glory, I must choose. This mental activity of choosing which ending or "gift" to receive (which is much, Less offending than the act of reading on the Sabbath) you"re suggesting is a work for which you"ll receive heaps of glory for because of that decision? Mark 2:27 Jesus accepted working on the Sabbath as a necessary means of sustaining those disciples who were hungry and physically weak. How much more so would he allow whosoever to pluck the free gift of salvation offered in the corn-fields of life to sustain the spiritual body that will never die?

"Point 3. Verses such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:29-30 are not in conflict with unconditional election"

"We are in agreement that God foreknows who will be saved and who will not. "
Absolutely! I believe in both the foreknowledge and election of God and that is just what first Peter and Romans states. Ephesians 1:4-5 notice does not just state, "He chose us before the foundation of the world" It mentions that He chose us in Him. In Christ would be the body of Christ. God chose us in Him before the foundations of the world. Also, I do not solely believe in election just because the Bible says so. There is reasoning behind it just as there is reasoning behind free will. God has attributes and He can not violate those characteristics because He is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). Some of His characteristics include love (1 John 4:7-8), Faithfulness (2 Timothy 2:13), Righteousness, Justice (Psalm 97:2), And holiness (Isaiah 6:3). God is holy. Even if He wanted to save everyone, He would not be able to because He would not be set apart. There would be no one or nothing to be set apart from. Lastly, I understand these passages in general to mean that God knew who would be "the elect" and before the foundations of the earth reasoned (not that he had to reason, He knows everything right? ): If I"m going to adopt children (and all those I adopt agree to be adopted), I"ll need a place to keep them, To care for them. That"s why I"m already making arrangements to have them live with me in my heavenly home" God is preparing a place for us in heaven! (John 14:1-3)

"Point 4. Romans 9:11 strongly supports unconditional election"
Romans 9:11 states, ". . . The children not yet being born, Nor having done any good or evil, That the purpose of God according to election might stand, Not of works but of Him who calls. "
God is sovereign! In this verse He is merely stating that He chose Jacob for the lineage of Jesus instead of Esau. God's sovereignty and man's ability to choose are not in conflict. God allows man to make a choice. Here"s an interesting example: Herod was the sovereign king over Israel at the time of Jesus" ministry and he offered to give half his kingdom away to a young woman who had lewdly danced to please him. He gave her the option to choose anything she wanted up to half the kingdom and he would give it. Now we know what she chose, And the prophet John the Baptist lost his head. This illustrates a good point. Herod did not really want to take John's head off for fear of the people. Nonetheless, He vowed to give her whatever she wanted, And even though he was sovereign he abdicated his authority to that of a young girl.

My Points:
1. Is salvation conditional or unconditional?
You have already provided definitions. First, We must look at salvation itself. What must happen for a person to be saved? The Bible gives a quick and short answer in Romans 10:8-10 (ESV): "The word is near you, In your mouth and in your heart" (that is, The word of faith that we proclaim); because, If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, You will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, And with the mouth one confesses and is saved. " The word if, Is a condition. Also, Merriam Webster concludes that a condition is a covenant. Is salvation not a covenant? Is it not a promise? Are we not told to stand on the promises of Christ our King (its a hymn)? The word if is the beginning of a conditional clause: https://study. Com/academy/lesson/conditional-words-definition-examples. Html
How then can salvation not be conditional?
2. All throughout Scripture, There are scenarios where God gives people a choice to choose to serve Him or not. Most of these are in the Old Testament, Choosing to serve God is an action of faith. God counted Abraham's faith as righteousness Genesis 15:6. I will provide a scenario below:
In Joshua 24, Joshua gives the Israelites the Word of the Lord. The Lord reminds them of everything He has done for them from Abraham, To the Red Sea, To Balaam's attempt to curse them, To the crossing of the Jordan River, And to the conquering of the Canaanite land. Then, He proposes with them a covenant, A promise, A condition. He tells them that they can choose to follow Him or the god's of their fathers. If God gave the Israelites a choice why wouldn't He give the Gentiles a choice?

I realize there may be some loose ends I have not explained. By all means please ask me. I can not be too lengthy in my first argument.

I look forward to your rebuttal and arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Jukebox101

Con

If God chose certain people to save, Then why would He go through all the trouble of creating sin (you believe God created sin), Making sure His elect hear His Word, Giving them faith, Regenerating their hearts, Create trials for them to go through for the process of sanctification all for His glory when He could simply create the elect He desires and let them glorify Him as they would ultimately do anyway if He went through all the trouble mentioned above.

- Let me clear something up. I am not completely sure if God created sin or not; this is something I am testing as viable or not, I admit. How God chooses to set up the process of salvation is up to him, So answering or not answering the rest of this question doesn't disprove my argument biblically. Here's a question: why did God create us? For his glory. Why did God make the salvation process like above? For his glory.

Your belief in only election without free will is not logical. God is logical. He is the Creator of logic. Also, God did not have to give the world the Bible. He could easily snap His fingers (once more) and regenerate all the souls of His elect.

- This is simply a straw man. The process of salvation is not without free will. I don't think we have a say in our election, But he doesn't force us to believe either. I believe that God regenerates our soul (born again; John 3 says that a man cannot even see the kingdom of God unless he is born again, So, How can we make a choice about something we don't even know about? ) and with our new spirit, We can believe in God, Because we want to. We will want to because of our spirit, Etc. The other part of your sentence is explained above.

- Also, God's logic is different than ours. Yes, He is the creator of logic, But you have to realize that just because the motives of something don't make sense or the action doesn't make sense at all, Doesn't mean it isn't biblical. Take the Trinity for example; we don't and can't comprehend it, Or the reasoning behind it. Does that mean it's not logical to God? Does it mean it's not logic?

"Point 1. Conditional Election is in disagreement with John 10:26-27. "
In the context (John 9-10), Jesus has been talking to the Pharisees which He mentions as Jews in other verses as well as the one before John 10:26. These Pharisees did not and would not believe that Jesus was the Christ, The Son of God. Jesus knew their hearts and his righteous anger was kindled against them for the yoke of bondage they placed upon his people.

- Why couldn't the Pharisees believe in Jesus, I thought everyone has a choice to believe?
- He talks about His sheep universally, So why can't the principles that he's talking about be applied universally?

Why would God select a group of people, But then subject them to the exercise of having to hear God"s Word (the Bible, The gospel) to "activate" their election or make it sure? God"s Word is clear that you must hear to obtain faith. Using logic and the bible what justification can you give that explains why God needs this extra step of a person "hearing" God"s Word to secure that person if he has already elected him before the foundation of the world? If you submit that "receiving a gift" of salvation is a work, Do you also submit that "hearing" is a work that is a necessary pre-requisite for salvation?

Again, I'm not going to question how God goes through with salvation (as revealed by Scripture).

- The word, "hear" isn't just auditory reception. It's also understanding and being able to receive what is being said. Remember when Jesus says, "He who has ears, Let him hear"? He isn't saying, "all who can auditorily receive what I'm saying, Hear. " No, He's saying, "he who can understand what I'm saying, Understand! " He tells the disciples that the unregenerate can't understand because they don't have a regenerated spirit to understand or receive what's being said (ears to hear). This is why it says he (in secret) tells the disciples what the parables mean. The same principle applies here. The "hearing" mentioned in your text (that Grace consistently provides) is auditory reception and understanding. And, Since God regenerates people before faith (which is what I believe) then being able to receive and understand what is being said by say, A preacher, Is not a work by us, Because it is the work of God, For"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, That ye believe on him whom he hath sent. " [John 6:29]. Chicken. KJV.

-Where in the Bible is this "receiving a gift" language used? The Bible calls us to BELIEVE and turn away from our sins (Mark). It calls on us to confess our sins.

A true Christian would never suggest their salvation is based on themselves so I dismiss the idea that conditional election leads to this view. This boils down to whether or not free will is a "work". . . [Rest of the Paragraph]

-Just because you don't think conditional election ultimately boils down to that, Doesn't mean that it doesn't. . . Ya know?
- It doesn't boil down to whether free will is a work, That's not what I'm arguing (if I did, I apologize). What I mean is that with conditional election, God is ultimately choosing to love us, Elect us, Finish the work of saving us, Based on a choice that we make. Sure, Even if the choice isn't a work, Election is still based on what we do. I don't think that gives complete glory to God; I think it gives room for us to boast. Just because you were a better choice maker than others, Means you're ultimately saved and elected. I think the idea that God chose us for salvation not based on anything we did is more loving. It's unconditional. It's not partial.
- As for the Sabbath story, I'm again sorry for a misunderstanding. Also, Again, Where is this "receiving the gift" language?


Even if He wanted to save everyone, He would not be able to because He would not be set apart. There would be no one or nothing to be set apart from.

-Woah. . . This violates God's omnipotence! He's an infinite being, He would be separate regardless. This is why I think if he really wanted to save everyone, He would! Also, This argument doesn't seem biblical either. If He wanted to, He could make it to where it doesn't violate his morals or character.

Lastly, I understand these passages in general to mean that God knew who would be "the elect" and before the foundations of the earth reasoned (not that he had to reason, He knows everything right? ): If I"m going to adopt children (and all those I adopt agree to be adopted), I"ll need a place to keep them, To care for them. That"s why I"m already making arrangements to have them live with me in my heavenly home" God is preparing a place for us in heaven! (John 14:1-3)

-Sure, But use scripture to interpret scripture (Fiat igitur Scripturam interpretandam scripturam). Other passages add to this message, So it's NOT the only part! And yes, God is preparing a place for us in heaven!


Herod was the sovereign king over Israel at the time of Jesus" ministry and he offered to give half his kingdom away to a young woman who had lewdly danced to please him. He gave her the option to choose anything she wanted up to half the kingdom and he would give it. Now we know what she chose, And the prophet John the Baptist lost his head. This illustrates a good point. Herod did not really want to take John's head off for fear of the people. Nonetheless, He vowed to give her whatever she wanted, And even though he was sovereign he abdicated his authority to that of a young girl.

-Let me remind you, Herod isn't God. His decisions are influenced by worldly things, And he was an unbeliever, Not God. I don't think it a good idea to compare what Herod did to what God did.

God's sovereignty and man's ability to choose are not in conflict. God allows man to make a choice.

Um. . . It literally says that God didn't choose based on their choice or anything that they had done! I don't get the point being made here, Please explain.

Now for your points:

1. Romans 10:8-10 is not the only verse that speaks to salvation; regeneration, Being born again, Election, The Holy Spirit, And other parts of salvation are not included there. How are people able to confess? Who is able to confess? How are they able to believe? Etc.
Salvation is a guaranteed promise! Using definitions doesn't prove election to be conditional (even though you are talking about salvation). It says if, Yes. This is true. If we are regenerated, Then we will be able to confess and believe! I think that is the biblical answer (John 3) It's conditional on GOD regenerating us, Not us regenerating us!

2. Serving God is not the same as salvation! If I don't choose to serve God sometimes, Does that mean I'm not saved? "If God gave the Israelites a choice why wouldn't he give the Gentiles a choice" You are making a false equivalency. The Israelites were choosing to serve God or not. The Gentiles, (in your eyes) are choosing salvation. They are different choices, Rendering it a fallacious argument.

For reference's sake, We disagree on: Election, Atonement, Prevenient vs. Effectual grace, And (maybe) sin.

Sola Deo Gloria!
Good luck, And chicken!


Ecarg

Pro

1. "How God chooses to set up the process of salvation is up to him, So answering or not answering the rest of this question doesn't disprove my argument biblically. Here's a question: why did God create us? For his glory. Why did God make the salvation process like above? For his glory. "
a. You have not answered the entirety of my question. You merely dismissed it with an argument that I could use on you for just about anything! By the way, Where does it say in the Bible that God can do what He wants? God can"t sin. God can"t go against any of His attributes (I mentioned the main ones in my earlier arguments). I know you can give a better argument than this! All you did was throw my argument in the trash! Chicken!
b. Proverbs: over and over God says He wants us to know and understand Him. What is the point if you make the argument every time that we cannot understand God? I am doing this debate to better understand God. If you are going to dismiss the fact that God actually wants us know Him and search out His ways, Then there is no reason for us to be debating. You completely dismissed my argument on the basis that God"s ways are unknowable.
2. "This is simply a straw man. "
a. I do not see how my argument here is a straw man. Please explain. I am simply arguing that unconditional election is not logical. How is that attacking a point that you are not defending? You are defending unconditional election. Maybe I am not understanding you here.
3. "The process of salvation is not without free will. I don't think we have a say in our election, But he doesn't force us to believe either. I believe that God regenerates our soul (born again; John 3 says that a man cannot even see the kingdom of God unless he is born again, So, How can we make a choice about something we don't even know about? ) and with our new spirit, We can believe in God, Because we want to. We will want to because of our spirit"
a. You clearly opened up a path for me to fully explain why I see your belief as humans being robots to God. Just hear me out: There is no free will if it is not free. Being "mind controlled" into not being able to resist God is not free will at all. You believe that God, At some point before time, Chose by His sovereign will who He would regenerate. Once a person is regenerated, They blindly follow and worship a Creator because He placed a "microchip" (if you will) in their brains to cause them to be irresistibly in love with Him. This is one of the points of Calvinism, Correct? Irresistible grace-
Irresistible: too attractive and tempting to be resisted; too powerful or convincing to be resisted
Grace: the free and unmerited favor of God, As manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings
b. As for John 3: Your parenthetical conclusion (about a person not even knowing about the Kingdom of God prior to regeneration) is not logical. The Pharisees themselves knew/understood about the Kingdom of God. In John 3, "seeing" the Kingdom of God is equivalent to being a part of it, Not necessarily just knowing about it.
4. "Also, God's logic is different than ours. Yes, He is the creator of logic, But you have to realize that just because the motives of something don't make sense or the action doesn't make sense at all, Doesn't mean it isn't Biblical. Take the Trinity for example; we don't and can't comprehend it, Or the reasoning behind it. Does that mean it's not logical to God? Does it mean it's not logic? "
a. I completely disagree with the fact that our logic is different than God"s. Yes, He is an infinite being and some things cannot be fathomed about Him, But that doesn"t mean we should not dig and search out answers as much as possible about who He is. Where does it state that God"s logic is different than ours in the Bible? Yours is a simple fallacy of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
b. I think that the Trinity is plenty comprehensible. There are pictures of the Trinity all around us. Some include marriage, Unity and diversity among homologous structures, The church, Etc. We may not be able to fathom the Trinity in its entirety, Just like God, But I think we have a pretty good grasp of an understanding about it.
5. Point 1) "Why couldn't the Pharisees believe in Jesus, I thought everyone has a choice to believe? He talks about His sheep universally, So why can't the principles that he's talking about be applied universally? "
a. Please forgive me. You have misunderstood what I am trying to convey here. The Pharisees had a choice, But they rejected Christ. They had unbelief and were already condemned (John 3:18). Those who are already condemned are not Jesus" sheep.
b. Actually, I agree with you here (the second question you asked). One can use this scenario of Jesus speaking to unbelievers to apply to unbelievers universally. Those who do not believe on Christ have already been condemned. Those who are condemned are not Jesus" sheep.
Point 1) "Again, I'm not going to question how God goes through with salvation (as revealed by Scripture). The word, "hear" isn't just auditory reception. It's also understanding and being able to receive what is being said. Remember when Jesus says, "He who has ears, Let him hear"? He isn't saying, "all who can auditorily receive what I'm saying, Hear. " No, He's saying, "he who can understand what I'm saying, Understand! " He tells the disciples that the unregenerate can't understand because they don't have a regenerated spirit to understand or receive what is being said (ears to hear). This is why it says he (in secret) tells the disciples what the parables mean. The same principle applies here. The "hearing" mentioned in your text (that Grace consistently provides) is auditory reception and understanding. And, Since God regenerates people before faith (which is what I believe) then being able to receive and understand what is being said by say, A preacher, Is not a work by us, Because it is the work of God, "For Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, That ye believe on him whom he hath sent. " [John 6:29]. Chicken. KJV. Where in the Bible is this "receiving a gift" language used? The Bible calls us to BELIEVE and turn away from our sins (Mark). It calls on us to confess our sins. "
c. I have already told you that this is not a valid point, And where is this point you are making in Scripture? If it is the verse about not being able to fathom God, Then yes we cannot fathom Him but I guarantee you that He has asked for us to search Him out and know Him more times than He has claimed that He is unknowable and unfathomable. Again, I could use this argument on you for anything!
d. I completely agree that when Christ says to hear he is not just referring to auditory reception but also understanding. Where does he tell the disciples that an unregenerate soul can"t hear? John 6: 29 is stating that salvation is God"s work not ours. You framed this verse to fit what you were trying to convey in your paragraph above. Faith comes by hearing! Not hearing by faith!
e. Colossians 2:6-7 God talks about receiving salvation in this verse (one of many). He talks about salvation being a gift in tons of verses you have already heard and know about.
6. Point 2) "This violates God's omnipotence! He's an infinite being, He would be separate regardless. This is why I think if he really wanted to save everyone, He would! Also, This argument doesn't seem biblical either. If He wanted to, He could make it to where it doesn't violate his morals or character. I don't think that gives complete glory to God; I think it gives room for us to boast. Just because you were a better choice maker than others, Means you're ultimately saved and elected. I think the idea that God chose us for salvation not based on anything we did is more loving. It's unconditional. It's not partial. "
a. Again, You are using the God can do whatever He wants argument. I have told you, God can"t go against His attributes and He will not He says in His Word that He is unchanging! He says that He cannot lie! Therefore, God will never change! God would never make it to where what He does, Does not violate His character. That would be manipulation and go against all the logic He has established in this world and given to us. God is not the author of confusion. Don"t just argue what I said above, Give me a valid answer to the argument I made before besides God can do anything He wants PLEASE!
b. I do not understand what you mean when you said, "Just because you don't think conditional election ultimately boils down to that, Doesn't mean that it doesn't". I do not believe ANYTHING is done by a person to be saved except simply accepting God"s work in their hearts. I do not believe that accepting a gift is a work.

7. Point 3) Be specific about which passages or verses you want me to read around others please.
8. Point 4) "Let me remind you, Herod isn't God. His decisions are influenced by worldly things, And he was an unbeliever, Not God. I don't think it a good idea to compare what Herod did to what God did. "
a. This is totally a straw man. You have not given an answer to my argument. I think what I did was perfectly fine. You compare a dark closet to salvation! I am by no means saying Herod is God. I am simply saying that kings are sovereign and have authority. Sometimes they lay aside their sovereignty for the sake of others. Read my argument again.
9. God's sovereignty and man's ability to choose are not in conflict. God allows man to make a choice. "Um. . . It literally says that God didn't choose based on their choice or anything that they had done! I don't get the point being made here, Please explain. "
a. Ok, I meant this for salvation. In Romans 9, We are talking about God electing Christ"s lineage, So yes I agree this is not based on Esau or Jacob"s choice or what they have done.
b. I am simply saying that God"s sovereignty over man and man having a choice are not in conflict referring to salvation. God was not talking about Esau and Jacob"s salvation in Romans.
10. My First Point) "Romans 10:8-10 is not the only verse that speaks to salvation; regeneration, Being born again, Election, The Holy Spirit, And other parts of salvation are not included there. How are people able to confess? Who is able to confess? How are they able to believe? Etc.
Salvation is a guaranteed promise! Using definitions doesn't prove election to be conditional (even though you are talking about salvation). It says if, Yes. This is true. If we are regenerated, Then we will be able to confess and believe! I think that is the biblical answer (John 3) It's conditional on GOD regenerating us, Not us regenerating us! "
a. I am not worried about every element of salvation being in this verse. It is stating that whoever believes will be saved. That is salvation in a nutshell.
b. You use definitions all the time. Definitions are logical. If one does not study how a sentence is formulated and what is being conveyed by how it is formulated, One will not understand fully what is being said!
c. NO! You literally added the word regenerated in the verse! You can"t add to the Bible!
d. I believe in regeneration. Yes, God regenerates us. We cannot possible regenerate ourselves! We simply ask God to regenerate us and He does it out of love.
11. My Second Point) "Serving God is not the same as salvation! If I don't choose to serve God sometimes, Does that mean I'm not saved? "If God gave the Israelites a choice why wouldn't he give the Gentiles a choice" You are making a false equivalency. The Israelites were choosing to serve God or not. The Gentiles, (in your eyes) are choosing salvation. They are different choices, Rendering it a fallacious argument. "
a. Serving God is the fruit of salvation. You will know them by their fruits! Christians are not going to serve God all the time because they are still bound by their earthly flesh, But repentance and regeneration occur in salvation, So there is definitely a change in a Christian"s life. Abraham served God because he had faith in God and it was counted unto him as righteousness! This applies to those who choose to serve God. The Israelites had a choice to serve God or idols. God is jealous. If they chose to serve God, They could never go back to serving idols or severe judgment would come upon them. These are not different choices! The whole mystery of the Gospel is reaching out to Gentiles! Once Gentiles are saved, There is evidence of this when they serve God.
Have fun and learn something chicken! Not necessarily from me, But God.
Debate Round No. 3
Jukebox101

Con

You have not answered the entirety of my question. You merely dismissed it with an argument that I could use on you for just about anything!

Umm. . . I merely stated that if God wants to save people a certain way, He can do that. There's no problem with that statement. I explained why I don't have to answer that question or others like that. Your argument earlier can be compared to this: like me dismissing conditional election because I don't understand why he would have chosen to elect that way. This is called the personal incredulity fallacy. Here's an analogy to help you understand what exactly I'm meaning: God is the creator, He can create creation how He wants to; God (Jesus) is the savior, He can save how he wants to (as long as it's in His attributes).
(° V0;B2;°)

By the way, Where does it say in the Bible that God can do what He wants? God can"t sin. God can"t go against any of His attributes.

Nowhere. I agree He can't sin or go against His attributes. ?

All you did was throw my argument in the trash!

Not true, All I did was dismantle it. If you don't understand one of my arguments, That doesn't mean I just threw yours in the trash, It just means your argument wasn't the best. I can't just agree with your argument. . .

Proverbs: over and over God says He wants us to know and understand Him. What is the point if you make the argument every time that we cannot understand God?

That is not my argument every time. We can understand a little of God, But not all because He is infinite. I'm saying that just because we don't understand God's motives, Doesn't mean what He is doing is unbiblical. There is nothing wrong with that.

You completely dismissed my argument on the basis that God"s ways are unknowable.

Wrong. Try to understand what I'm actually saying. Otherwise, I'm going to start ignoring these statements.

I do not see how my argument here is a straw man.

You said that election and salvation are without free will. I explained above why this is a false representation of my belief (which, I remind you, Is a straw man).

Once a person is regenerated, They blindly follow and worship a Creator because He placed a "microchip" (if you will) in their brains to cause them to be irresistibly in love with Him.

Nope. Read what I actually said. God changes our nature, To where we want to follow Him. Please stop making me restate myself; we've talked about this before. Stop using this straw man (which I have disproved multiple times) against me. It's not helping anyone. Would you want me to consistently and constantly say something like, "Well, If we choose God, Then we're saving ourselves, Therefore, Self-salvation"? You are saying that I "opened" up somewhere for you to attack; rather, Just the opposite. Also, Effectual grace is a better term than irresistible grace.

Your parenthetical conclusion (about a person not even knowing about the Kingdom of God prior to regeneration) is not logical.

Jesus himself quite literally calls it a secret. Read Mark 4:11. He purposely is not clear to the outsiders. They can't understand.

The Pharisees themselves knew/understood about the Kingdom of God.

How do you know?

The Pharisees had a choice

Stop stating things like this constantly and give biblical support. They can't and won't choose God because they are dead in their sins. They can't "ask" God to regenerate themselves becaus they are blind to Him in the first place.

I am not worried about every element of salvation being in this verse. It is stating that whoever believes will be saved. That is salvation in a nutshell.

You used it like so in your previous argument.

"I completely disagree with the fact. . . With the bath water"

If some things cannot be fathomed by us, Then they are inherently not understood by us, And inherently not logical to us. God has perfect logic. Also, I'm not saying not to learn more about who He is. That is a biblical concept, I'm saying that some things we need to accept that we won't and can't know about Him. It doesn't have to state it in the Bible, It's a consistent idea, Just like hermeneutics. Are hermeneutics in the Bible? Finally, I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Like I just explained. That isn't a fallacy, That's an idiomatic expression.

We may not be able to fathom the Trinity in its entirety

Which means we can't comprehend it entirely. You're helping my point here.

He talks about salvation being a gift in tons of verses you have already heard and know about.

Yes, And why do you propose that everyone has a choice to receive it or accept it?

Faith comes by hearing! Not hearing by faith!

That's not what I said. I said that when we are born again (which is different than faith) we are able to fully hear.

Again, You are using. . . PLEASE! and I do not understand. . . Is a work

Good point about not changing character, But you have not answered my other point. You said God couldn't save everyone because he wouldn't be different. I'm saying if God saved everyone He would still be different. I'm saying doing so wouldn't go against His character, Please understand. Don't worry about what I said earlier in regards to ultimately "boils. " However, You contradict yourself. You say we have to accept His gift AND ask him to regenerate us AND repent (not just one thing).

This is totally a straw man. You have not given an answer to my argument. I think what I did was perfectly fine.

What do you mean, Straw man? I'm not misrepresenting your beliefs, I'm just saying why I think your analogy is flawed. Comparing Herod's earthly, Imperfect, And not total sovereignty to God's supernatural and natural, Perfect, And total sovereignty is fallacious!
9. A. Ok; 9. B. Ok

You use definitions all the time. Definitions are logical. If one does not study how a sentence is formulated and what is being conveyed by how it is formulated, One will not understand fully what is being said

Human definitions change, Adding to my point that human logic is not perfect (if like you said definitions are logical), And is not the same as God's. Perhaps it may be useful to you to define what logic is. ( V5;° V0;B2; V5;°) Yes, I use definitions.

NO! You literally added the word regenerated in the verse! You can"t add to the Bible!

I'm not adding. . . Like I said I am using scripture to interpret scripture. Regenerate is another word for born again, Which is definitely talked about by Jesus. In fact, You are adding with statements such as, "receiving a gift" and "the Pharisees had a choice" and "we ask God to regenerate us. " So, Before you tell me this, Check your statements. . .

We simply ask God to regenerate us and He does it out of love.

. . . Not in the Bible. I thought all we did was choose to believe in Him. . . . . Like you said. . . Show biblical support.

These are not different choices! The whole mystery of the Gospel is reaching out to Gentiles! . . . {whole paragraph}

Is there not a difference between serving God and choosing to believe in Him? I can choose to serve God multiple times, I don't choose to believe in Him multiple times. . . The Israelites were given multiple choices to serve God.


What are some main issues you have with unconditional election?
Why does Jesus not make everything clear to those "outside of the parables? " If he wants everyone to come to Him?





I hope I have answered everything.

Soli Deo Gloria




Ecarg

Pro

"Umm. . . God is the creator, He can create creation how He wants to; God (Jesus) is the savior, He can save how he wants to (as long as it's in His attributes). "
If God can create how He wants to and save how He wants (within His attributes) to then you should have no problem believing in conditional election. Actually, I can answer why God chose to elect that way based and conditional election. You do not have an answer as to why God elected based on unconditional election. The difference between my belief and yours is the fact that I can argue a reasonable/rational explanation that supports my views where-as your belief reduces your argument to "we"ll that"s just how God wanted to do it" without any explanation as to why. Therefore, I feel Calvinism is an inferior view.

"You said that election and salvation are without free will. I explained above why this is a false representation of my belief (which, I remind you, Is a straw man). "
I was no aware that you believed in free will after regeneration. Forgive me here. You said the process of salvation is without free will.

"Nope. Read what I actually said. God changes our nature, To where we want to follow Him. Please stop making me restate myself; we've talked about this before. Stop using this straw man (which I have disproved multiple times) against me. It's not helping anyone. . "
Forgive me for mischaracterizing your belief about blindly following and worshiping a Creator. I was wrong to do that. I just still do not see how your belief is not mind control. Please explain why it is not one more time. You believe God "switches on the light" in someone"s heart without their consent or anything. Then afterwards they choose to follow God and love Him. If God never turned on the light, They wouldn"t have followed, Worshipped and loved Him correct? If so, How is that not like taking the dead batteries out of a toy and putting in new ones? The toy has no say so in the matter? The toy doesn"t ask to have his batteries (or nature) replaced, He"s just dead until you come along and act. Help me understand how this different.

"Would you want me to consistently and constantly say something like, "Well, If we choose God, Then we're saving ourselves, Therefore, Self-salvation"? You are saying that I "opened" up somewhere for you to attack; rather, Just the opposite. Also, Effectual grace is a better term than irresistible grace. "
You actually use this argument on me quite often. I have explained that receiving salvation is not a work. God does the work. He regenerates your soul, Gives you faith, And gives you the Holy Spirit. I am completely unable to save myself. I humbly ask God to do it for me because I cannot. This is not a work it is simply receiving a gift that is offered. If you had a rich uncle who mailed your church a check for a healthy sum of money, It"s not enough to simply leave the check in the envelope. It must be received (accepted and appropriated). Its potential isn"t realized until your church cashes/deposits it! I believe the Bible teaches this same principle.

"Jesus himself quite literally calls it a secret. Read Mark 4:11. He purposely is not clear to the outsiders. They can't understand. "
You believe that Jesus spoke in parables so that those not elect could not understand what he was saying, ". . Lest at any time they should be converted, And their sins should be forgiven them", But if they are already condemned and not elected, Why would hearing God"s word about these mysteries bring about a conversion or a regeneration? Is there some disagreement between the Trinity about who are truly the elect? Or does this more accurately agree with my perspective, That the people to whom Jesus spoke could have conceivably seen, Perceived, Heard, Understood and been converted? Then comes the question, Why did He not want them to turn and be converted. If they were, Then Jesus could never accomplish His work on the cross! They had to first crucify Him before their sins could be wiped away clean! Their faith in Him would be pointless if He did not die! These people whose hearts were not already hardened against Christ would have the parables revealed to them later on. Those who had their hearts already hardened:God speaks of not always striving with man; He also speaks of today being the day of salvation and to seek him while he may be found; He speaks of not casting the pearls before the swine; He speaks of a point of no return. He has promised in his word that he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness. I think it"s evident the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 12) on many occasions denying the power of the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

"How do you know? They can't and won't choose God because they are dead in their sins. They can't "ask" God to regenerate themselves because they are blind to Him in the first place. "
The Pharisees were taught just like Paul was. They studied the Old Testament constantly. These verses from the Old Testament (Exodus 15:18, Psalm 9:7-12, Psalm 145:13, Psalm 146:10, Daniel 4:3) speak of the coming of the kingdom. John the Baptist quoted a reference to Isaiah 40:3, "Prepare the way of the Lord". This tells the Pharisees that God is about to show up. They completely rejected Jesus as God, King, Lord.
Then why did Jesus try to keep His message concealed and secret from them if they are dead in their sin and won"t respond to it anyway?
Sorry I did not have enough time to finish. I will answer what I did not in my last one. Please forgive me.
Debate Round No. 4
Jukebox101

Con


As a note: Since this is my final argument, I will be summarizing things and countering your points due to you having the last say. Throughout this debate, There have been misunderstandings on both sides, But I think it's good to say that we both respect each other and each other's positions. This has not been a perfect debate (especially from my side) and therefore should not be taken as a perfect (or even good) defense of my side. I have made some mistakes that you have pointed out and used some ambiguous arguments. As you said at the beginning, This has been hopefully a chance to learn more of the other's sides. I hope to do my best in this last round and answer effectively.


If God can create how He wants to and save how He wants (within His attributes) to then you should have no problem believing in conditional election.

Not exactly, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey there. I meant that, if it is revealed by scripture, if God chose to save a certain way, That He could do that. I have a problem with conditional election because mainly I don't think it's scriptural, And along with that not logical as well. The former takes place over the latter; I hoped this has cleared some things up.

You do not have an answer as to why God elected based on unconditional election.

I think ultimately He did so for His glory. It's not partial and isn't based on something we did (even if a choice isn't a work, It's still based on something we did; if conditional election is true, We were better choice-makers, I guess). It's based on His perfect choice and His reasons. I'm okay with not knowing every aspect about it. Sure, You can give a more detailed answer, But I don't think this means you're right. You haven't really shown a biblical reason why God wants to give every man a choice (if you have, Please excuse me, I would ask that you would show it again. Calvinism is not inferior because I can't give you a detailed explanation on every reason and whim He has in salvation.

reduces your argument to "we"ll that"s just how God wanted to do it" without any explanation as to why.

See above. The reason I have said that phrase is because I was responding to some of your earlier arguments.

You said the process of salvation is without free will. , Forgive me for mischaracterizing your. . . Forgive me for mischaracterizing your. . .

I'll try to clear this up. I meant without your version of free will, Where we can choose to accept a gift while we're in bondage to sin, And somehow love God more than our sin. Somehow, Before we have a changed spirit to where we're free from sin. Somehow, Like you used in an analogy, We, As toys without batteries, Can respond to something when we don't have the power ("dead" in our sins). God is not obligated to give anyone of us grace, So I don't have a problem with Him giving grace to some. I'd rather He'd give to some than none! It is called grace for a reason. It's unmerited by us. If I had a say in the matter, Then I wouldn't choose God. I wouldn't want Him to change me.

God knows best, So this idea of "the toy didn't have a say in the matter" is a flawed argument. He is loving them because He knows they would choose otherwise (if they were in bondage to sin). Why would it make sense for God to pursue someone, And then let them not choose Him, Especially if He wants them to be saved? I think its more loving to overlook that they don't want Him and save them (grace/mercy). If the passage in Luke about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem is brought up, Then this website (the answer) will explain that passage: https://christianity. Stackexchange. Com/questions/40834/how-do-calvinists-explain-luke-1941-44

Even Adam and Eve, Who were able to make a perfect, Free choice (without being dead in their sins) didn't choose God! How much more can we, Being affected by being dead in our sins and the world, Not choose God! That is what doesn't make sense to me. We are able to make a better choice than Adam and Eve, Why? And they walked with Him! This is another reason I think God changes our nature, To where we are NOT in bondage to sin, To where we can respond to the gospel, And we can freely make the choice to believe! We are able to freely put our faith in Him, And we will because we want to love Him! This is why I wouldn't call a choice before regeneration "free" will because it's not. It's a "partially" free will. We choose to sin.

I believe biblically that God elects unconditionally who he is going to regenerate and free from their sins, And in summary, This is okay, Because He is not obligated to save anyone in the first place. He doesn't make us believe, He enables us to, And we want to! Sure, You believe in prevenient grace, But our nature is still not changed, And we are still in bondage to sin. The argument that, Well, People of this world still do good things, Doesn't hold. They still ultimately do it for themselves, And their benefit. Anyway, Salvation is a lot different than choosing to do good things. Salvation would be a one-time choice that impacts you eternally, While other things are made multiple times! Also, God has an influence on the world as well. Sorry for the large paragraph!

You actually use this argument on me quite often. . . [Paragraph]

Good point, And I apologize for doing so, I was wrong. However, I think the analogy works well here still. The difference would be that I don't think everyone can receive it. You have helped me understand this difference, And I again apologize for this mischaracterization/straw man, And I think I've learned more on what we disagree on.

You believe that Jesus spoke in parables so that those not elect could not understand what he was saying. . . [paragraph]

There may be (yet) another problem with how I phrased something. Here will be my final answer.

The truths of the kingdom are precious. He gives the reason for speaking in parables in order to hide the secrets of the kingdom from some and reveal them to others (Matt. 13:12–15). Matthew Henry says parables make the things of God “more plain and easy” to those willing to be taught, And “at the same time more difficult and obscure to those who [are] willfully ignorant. ” God does not want to reveal these glorious things to the rebellious, His disciples inquire further to learn more.

He speaks in parables to hide the secrets of the kingdom from some and reveal them to others (Matt. 13:12–15). This does not mean His parables are full of esoteric information that only a select few can grasp with their minds. Christ’s enemies often understand exactly what His parables mean (see 21:33–46); the problem is their refusal to trust His teaching about Himself and God’s kingdom. The difficulty the Pharisees have is moral and thus volitional, Not intellectual. They choose not to believe our Savior’s words. Those who take up their cross gain more access to kingdom truth; those who reject Him lose whatever insight they had (13:12). We are always free to do what we want, But apart from God’s grace we do not want to love Jesus.

Then why did Jesus try to keep His message concealed and secret from them if they are dead in their sin and won"t respond to it anyway?

[Hopefully] answered above.



This has been an interesting debate, And I have definitely learned from it, And hope you have too. I am sorry for limiting your time to respond on some occasions, So your round above would have been better. I had to rush a bit on this one due to time constraints of my own. Thanks for accepting though!

Soli Deo Gloria
Ecarg

Pro

If it is revealed by scripture, If God chose to save a certain way. . . He could do that. I have a problem with conditional election because mainly I don't think it's scriptural, And along with that not logical as well. The former takes place over the latter

I have failed to actually give you a complete explanation as to why I think we have conditional election. I will do my best to explain this fully with scripture and logic:
Logically, No man can love another without choosing to do so (you agree because you believe in free will also, Just after regeneration). Here, If I continued my argument, You would make the point that man can not be compared to God. My refutation to this is that this is similar to a marriage situation and Paul compares the church and Christ to marriage itself. God chooses to love whomever He pleases, Under the condition that He is in line with what His attributes are. (Romans: you know where). In the Bible, It states and there is evidence that God desires relationships with mankind (1 John 1:3, Why then would we be called to pray without ceasing? 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18, God walked with righteous men like Noah and Enoch). No true relationship can be established if both do not commit and respect, Correct? I reason that God laid aside His (this is the logic and reason part because it is not explained to us in the Bible which doesn"t mean it can"t or can be true) omnipotence (Jesus did so when He became fully God and man) and set back and let man either reject or accept (John 12:37-50) His Words. If Christ says that one can reject Him or even repent and believe and His sayings, I do not understand how there is no choice before one is regenerated. God created all men with a will and choice to enter into fellowship with Him. He, In His omniscience understood that there would be those who would reject Him, But I conclude that He created them for His ultimate glory and in doing so, He was quite merciful. God still used them so that when they finally saw His face and were judged for rejecting Him, They would at least know that they brought Him glory somehow. I believe those in hell will wish that they could have made the right decision on earth, But God set a "time line" literally and it will be too late by then. For the whole total depravity thing, I will simply state that I am struggling with my beliefs on that, So it would be best not to debate it right now. These are my beliefs for God"s motives. Your argument also includes for His glory, And I am fine with that. (If you have questions please ask)

It's unmerited by us. If I had a say in the matter, Then I wouldn't choose God. I wouldn't want Him to change me"(rest of paragraphs)

You make incredible arguments and ask deep questions! I have told you above that I am on shaky ground with what I believe about total depravity and the Spirit illuminating one"s heart etc. I know that we are dead in our trespasses and sins and that we are born with a sinful nature. I have read that faith comes by hearing and hearing by God"s Word, So is faith given to those who hear God"s word and they either take it or leave it? Is there a different type of faith here and does God give it to everyone? Yeah, I just gonna be honest. I don"t know. I can"t answer your questions, But God can and I will take some of my free time to look at this as soon as possible.

You contradict yourself. You say we have to accept His gift AND ask him to regenerate us AND repent (not just one thing).

Yes, These are three different things, But they all are apart of salvation. God says in Romans
10:10 that with the heart man believes (this I conclude deals with receiving, Accepting, Repenting and believing) and with the mouth, Confession is made (ask Him or confess to Him our sins and need of Him in our lives). Two main things deal with salvation, The heart (soul/spirit/extra) and the physical body (mouth/tongue).

The truths of the kingdom are precious"

Here I think I agree with you on most points. I do believe, If we are saying that some cannot understand the parables, Which some can"t, That (sorry if I have already mentioned this) Jesus was on earth for a mission: to die on the cross. If these people did not reject Him at that time, He would not be able to fulfill His promise (Luke 17:25). For your second paragraph, I agree with you completely! I"m not very sure about the last part :)

I hope I answered the main points. Thanks for letting me learn and grow in God"s Word with you and encouraging me to dig under the surface. God truly is unfathomable, But we must search Him out to grow a deeper relationship with Him! Please do not apologize for the time limit. I am limited also. Thank you for being willing to put up with my long paragraph"s :) I am overjoyed that you do this for God"s glory only! He deserves all the praise!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
please take my r4 mood with a grain of salt, It may seem frustrated or something. I read over and would change a few words!
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
I meant Pro when I said Con in R2.
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
well, I think she disagrees based on whether God chooses people based on their faith or not based on their faith, That was just a specific part.
Posted by Kvng_8 3 years ago
Kvng_8
Con's R1: I will be arguing against conditional election (the belief that God looks down the corridors of time"
Pro's R1: I do not agree with you about God "looking down the corridors of time"

I think both of you are on the same page
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.