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

Reformed Theology (Calvinism)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,261 times Debate No: 120860
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (0)

 

Jukebox101

Pro

My position is that Reformed theology (or calvinism) is a biblical doctrine and is how soteriology and salvation should be understood. This will be a biblical debate and centered around interpreting passages.

For sake of the debate, The burden of proof will be on both of us to provide evidence and reasoning along with that.

I will be arguing the historic points of this theology, Such as:

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (Particular redemption is a better term, As both sides limit the atonement in some way)
Irresistible Grace (Efficacious grace is a better term, As I believe we can resist it)
Perserverance of the saints (Basically, The truly saved cannot lose their salvation)

In the first round, You can lay out where you disagree and what you personally believe in.

The first round can be acceptance, Or layout of beginning of your arguments.
Speedrace

Con

I accept. I will be arguing that those who go to heaven or hell are not predetermined.
Debate Round No. 1
Jukebox101

Pro

1. Paul disagrees.

- Ephesians 1:4-5: (KJV)

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, That we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, According to the good pleasure of his will.


Predetermined pretty much means the same thing as predestined. This verse is saying that God chose us (before the foundation of the world) to be holy and without blame. We could only be without blame if we are saved. He determined our destinies for adoption of children to Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will. This is basically a summary of unconditional election. I fail to see how this could mean anything but what I've explained above.

2. John 6: 36-37

But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, And believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


- In this context, Jesus is talking about how He is the bread of life. He says above to the pharisees (and the non-believers) that they had seen the miracles that he had performed and yet did not believe in Him. He then says that all the people that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him. Does God give everyone to Jesus? No. Therefore, He only gives some.

3. Acts 13:48

48 And when the Gentiles heard this, They were glad, And glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

This verse blatantly shows that God ordains some to eternal life. The Gentiles who weren't ordained didn't believe.

4. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, Brethren beloved of the Lord, Because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think this puts the nail in the coffin. God chose (predestined) the believers that Paul was talking to unto salvation!


I await your arguments,

-Juke

Speedrace

Con

1 Timothy 2:4 says: "[God] will have all men to be saved, And to come unto the knowledge of the truth. "

How could this be true if God selects only certain people to go to heaven? In fact, Why would he create certain people in the first place if he wasn't going to allow them to enter heaven? It makes no sense. In fact, It would entail controlling their free will:

John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "

So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already?

Besides this, You're basically saying that God has condemned people to sin beyond their free will, But God hates sin more than anything else. So you're essentially saying that he created people to do something he hates and they can't control it.

2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, As some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, Not wanting anyone to perish, But everyone to come to repentance. "

Why would he have to be patient and wait if he had already chosen who goes to heaven and who doesn't? It simply wouldn't matter. In the Calvinist worldview, God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches.

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, That whosoever believeth on him should not perish, But have eternal life. "

This says that God loves the entire world, And whoever believes in Jesus shall go to heaven and have eternal life, Not only those he supposedly hand-picked.

Besides this, If we were pre-destined, There would be no point in missionaries or spreading the word, Because those who go to heaven will go regardless of whether they hear of Jesus or not and those who will go to hell will go whether they hear of Jesus or not.

1 Peter 3:15: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, Always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, Yet with gentleness and reverence;"

Why would we be called to minister to people who can't actually make a choice themselves?

Another point is that sin wouldn't matter at all, But look at Hebrews 10:16: "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, "

This shows how we can lose salvation, But that is not true in this Calvinist view.

The first scripture you use is Ephesians 1:4-5. However, Your view of it is not true. In 1:13 it specifically says: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, The gospel of your salvation. When you believed, You were marked in him with a seal, The promised Holy Spirit, "

They were included in Christ when they believed, Also known as choosing. For more context, 1:1 says "Paul, An apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus"

He is talking to Christians here: "The Calvinist contends that certain individuals were chosen before the world began and predestined to become believers, But that is simply not what the text says. Paul teaches that those “in Him” have been predestined to become “holy and blameless” and “to be adopted as sons, ” but he never says that certain individuals were predestined to believe in Christ. Paul is speaking of what “the faithful in Christ” (vs. 1) have been predestined to become, Not about God preselecting certain individuals before the foundation of the world to be irresistibly transformed into believers. "'

(Please see my profile comments for the source)

"In this context, Jesus is talking about how He is the bread of life. He says above to the pharisees (and the non-believers) that they had seen the miracles that he had performed and yet did not believe in Him. He then says that all the people that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him. Does God give everyone to Jesus? No. Therefore, He only gives some. "

You're wrong, God does give everyone to Jesus. In fact, Romans 1:20 says: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, Being understood from what has been made, So that men are without excuse"

This means that everyone hears the Word of God, Not only some.


You used Acts 13:48 a little out of context to explain your point. If you look at the context of that scripture, It is a setting where there are Jewish people, And then there are Gentiles. God is giving his favor to the Gentiles and giving them revelation because they have been humble and received his word. God simply chooses to spread his blessings through Israel.

Acts 13:8: "“Therefore, My friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, A justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. "

This says that can get forgiveness if we believe, And it says everyone.

You also used 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 to prove your point. However, Context tells us how Gentiles were continually condemned by Jews, And God was saying that Gentiles were included in his plan. Also, He says that he chose them through sanctification and belief of the truth, So if your view was correct, God would be controlling their wills and making them believe in him. However, We know this not to be true.

Over to you! :)
Debate Round No. 2
Jukebox101

Pro

How could this be true if God selects only certain people to go to heaven? , [1 Timothy 2:4]

Well, We see in verse 2 kinds of people (“kings and all who are in high positions”) being mentioned. What Paul was asking Timothy to do is pray for “all” people. How are we to understand the “all” here? Did Paul mean that Timothy should pray for every single person in the world? Surely we don’t think that’s the case, But we see that after Paul says that Timothy should pray for “all” people we see in verse 2 that Paul specifies, Limits, Clarifies, Narrows his use of the word “all, ” by saying that Timothy should pray “for kings and all who are in high position. ” So what Paul is saying to Timothy is this: Timothy, Do not only pray for your brethren, Who are those that are despised in the world, Who are persecuted, Who are hated, But don’t forget Jesus’ commandment to love our enemies. So, Timothy also pray for your persecutors that they may come to the knowledge of God, Who desires to save all kinds of people, So that we may lead a peaceful life. Then it follows logically that if we accept the contextual meaning of “all” to mean “all kinds of” then the “all” in verse 6 also means that Jesus was a ransom for all kinds of people. Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus with His blood has ransomed a people for God from every tribe, Language, People and nation; thus, Jesus has ransomed every kind of people, Kings and servants, Free and slaves, Male and female, Jew and Gentile. Please note in Revelation 5:9, It says that our Glorious Lord ransomed with his blood a people for God from every tribe, Tongue, People and nation, A specific people, Not the tribes, Tongues, Peoples and nations.

https://www. Thecalvinist. Net/post/1-Timothy-2:4-Titus-2:11-desires-All-People-To-Be-Saved (for more info and source)

Why would he create certain people in the first place if he wasn't going to allow them to enter heaven?

Romans 9 and Proverbs 16

Romans: 22 What if God, Although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, Bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, Whom he prepared in advance for glory—24 even us, Whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, Even the wicked for the day of trouble.

So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already?

God doesn't make us believe. In my view, God regenerates (or makes born again) a person, And then they want to believe in Him, Because they have a new nature. They can resist, But ultimately they will come to Christ (John 6:36-37).

Why would he have to be patient and wait if he had already chosen who goes to heaven and who doesn't? It simply wouldn't matter. In the Calvinist worldview, God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches.

Let's get something straight here. The world all in 1 Peter has an antecedent. He said God is patient towards you, So all here means elect, Or future believers. Let me remind you, Paul says he suffers all things for the sake of elect. And, This goes along with what I said above. He wants all of his elect to come to repentance, And is patient, Because He allows for resistance. Context matters!

God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches.

Explained above. This is not a biblical idea, So I refute the former part of this sentence.

John 3:16, This says that God loves the entire world, And whoever believes in Jesus shall go to heaven and have eternal life, Not only those he supposedly hand-picked.

Let's look at the context and meaning of the greek in this verse, Since it's proof-texted all the time.

Examine the phrase “whoever believes in him, ” Which is the phrase most emphasized from the verse and also mentioned in verse 15 which I really have no problem with. Since “none seeks after God” (Rom 3:9-12), Unless God draws them (Jn 6:44) and the offer of salvation is universal to every single individual who hears the Gospel (Mt 22:14). The funny thing is, In the Greek text there is no such thing as “whosoever will. ” The Greek phrase πQ18;ς P01; πιστεa3;ων (pas ha pusteuon) literally translates “all the believing” or “everyone believing. ” Bible-believing Christians believe that those who have repented toward God and have put their faith in Christ are saved. All the believing will definitely not perish, But those who do not believe are already condemned (verse 18)!

Simply, Whoever is going to believe, Is gonna believe!

Also, Another thing to note is the phrase “For God so loved the world. ” This “so” does not indicate the measure of love, But the way, The manner of love, That’s why the alternate reading for the ESV says “This is how God loved the world. "
https://www. Thecalvinist. Net/post/John-3:16-God-So-Loved-The-World

Besides this, If we were pre-destined, There would be no point in missionaries or spreading the word, Because those
who go to heaven will go regardless of whether they hear of Jesus or not and those who will go to hell will go whether they hear of Jesus or not.

This is easily resolved. God's means of salvation is by people hearing the gospel and believing in it, So there is a point in missionaries. Otherwise, The elect wouldn't hear the gospel! Also, We don't know who the unsaved elect are. ;)

Why would we be called to minister to people who can't actually make a choice themselves?

There seems to be a misconception here. People consciously make the choice to reject God (Romans 1). The debate here is about whether and who will come. They can't come because of their depraved nature, And this affects their choices. God says whosoever will, Come. He's inviting the people who want to come, To do so! People will only be able to if their spirit is made new, And they are born again. You have to realize that election is a biblical doctrine, Just read first Peter! Whoever God elected (before the foundation of the world, Need may remind you) he would impart saving grace on and graciously regenerate. He is the creator! For those not elected, He passes over and justly leaves them in their sins (pardition I think is the term). Also, Remember that God saving us at all isn't fair, Because we deserve condemnation! So choosing to save us at all is good enough!

Hebrews

Christians who claim to be sinless are self-deluded (1 John 1:8), And those who sin should not despair of grace (4:16; 1 John 2:1, 2). The willful sin here is abandoning one’s confession altogether, Trampling the Son underfoot, Treating His sacrificial blood as unclean, And insulting God’s gracious Spirit (6:6 note; 10:29). The seriousness of the charge is indicated by its willfulness (cf. Num. 15:30) and the measure of knowledge or enlightenment it refuses. This passage is not teaching that true Christians can lose their salvation; rather, It is a warning for believers to persevere and for those who profess faith without possessing it to trust in Christ alone (cf. Heb. 6:4–12 and notes; 10:32). No longer remains a sacrifice for sins. Since God has set aside the Levitical system of animal sacrifices (v. 9), Those who abandon their confession of trust in Christ have nowhere to turn for forgiveness. Christ says in John that nothing can take away the sheep He has under His wing, Including themselves!

If we could lose our salvation, You realize that salvation would be works based, Right?

Ephesians 1:4-5

What does it mean when it says "in love, He predestined us to. . . . Adoption. " You seem to be ignoring the word predestined, Which was part of my original argument. How would this tie in to your belief? If they were predestined to be adopted as sons, Then they were predestined to be saved! This logically entails regeneration, Because if everyone was regnerated, Then everyone would come to Him, (John 6)

John 6

The passage I gave earlier says, "all that the Father gives me, WILL come to me. You are basically affirming universalism then if God gives everyone to Jesus!

You used Acts 13:48 a little out of context to explain your point. If you look at the context of that scripture, It is a setting where there are Jewish people, And then there are Gentiles. God is giving his favor to the Gentiles and giving them revelation because they have been humble and received his word. God simply chooses to spread his blessings through Israel.

In looking at the context, You disregard what the verse actually says. It is talking about belief, And how the Gentiles who were appointed to eternal life believed! The actual verse's content seemed to be missing from your rebuttal ;)

This says that can get forgiveness if we believe, And it says everyone.

Yes, We can get forgiveness if we believe. It says Everyone who believes. Everyone who believes is set free from sin, Of course. It doesn't say everyone will get forgiveness. No problem here! Belief is a choice! And along with that Christ is made irresistible!


A question: Why are people in hell paying for their sins? I thought Jesus paid for them? Isn't that double jeopardy?



I will disregard the 2 Thessalonians passage until later due to limited space to write, I hope you understand.

Over to you! :)

Speedrace

Con

"But we see that after Paul says that Timothy should pray for “all” people we see in verse 2 that Paul specifies, Limits, Clarifies, Narrows his use of the word 'all, '"

There is no indication of this in the scripture. It says "for all men" in verse 1 and simply chooses an example in verse 2. There is no indication that he was narrowing what "all" meant.

You kind of argued against yourself in that first paragraph. Verse 6 says "who gave himself a ransom for all, To be testified in due time. " He gave himself for everyone, not just some.

"Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, Even the wicked for the day of trouble. "

This does not support your position. In the Calvinist view, People will be led to Christ no matter what, So they should be able to do it without the wicked. You're saying that only certain people were "chosen" to accept Jesus, But that also means that God created certain people who he wouldn't allow to go to heaven no matter what because he won't allow them to choose Jesus, Meaning that he sentences them to hell simply because he created them.

You also used Romans 9. This, In my opinion, Also does not support your position. If God created people to sin without any choice in the matter, Then he is ultimately responsible for all sin. The only exception would be Christians, Who would be the only ones who could CHOOSE to sin, So all sin falls on Christians and God. However, It is those that don't have a choice in the matter who get eternal torture?

However, This is directly contrasted in Romans 120: "For his invisible attributes, Namely, His eternal power and divine nature, Have been clearly perceived, Ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. " They can only be without excuse if they have a CHOICE.

The passage of Romans 9 seems to be talking about God's plan for human history. In fact, Genesis 33 suggests that Esau ended right with God, So the example earlier is not consistent with your view.

"God doesn't make us believe. In my view, God regenerates (or makes born again) a person, And then they want to believe in Him, Because they have a new nature. They can resist, But ultimately they will come to Christ (John 6:36-37). "

Again, You're saying that God condemns certain people to a life of sin that they have no choice in. So by that logic, God is a moral monster who is responsible for the sins of everyone he send to hell for no fault of theirs. That verse simply means that Jesus will not reject anybody who comes to him, And Albert Barnes, A Calvinist, Admitted this: “This expression does not refer to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, But to the fact that Jesus will not reject or refuse any sinner who comes to him” (pp. 246-247). "

Barnes, Albert (1954), “Luke — John, ” Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker).

"Let's get something straight here. The world all in 1 Peter has an antecedent. He said God is patient towards you, So all here means elect, Or future believers. "

First of all, I was referring to 2 Peter 3, Not 1 Peter. Second, Nowhere in 2 Peter 3 does it mention an antecedent, And you did not provide where you got that from. My point still stands.

"God has created people to go to hell simply because he can, But that completely goes against the God that the Bible preaches.

Explained above. This is not a biblical idea, So I refute the former part of this sentence. "

You're right, It isn't biblical, And that is exactly why Calvinism is wrong. If someone isn't given the opportunity to accept Jesus, That means that they are forced to continue in a life of sin beyond their own free will.

"The funny thing is, In the Greek text there is no such thing as “whosoever will. ” The Greek phrase πQ18;ς P01; πιστεa3;ων (pas ha pusteuon) literally translates “all the believing” or “everyone believing. ” Bible-believing Christians believe that those who have repented toward God and have put their faith in Christ are saved. All the believing will definitely not perish, But those who do not believe are already condemned (verse 18)! "

The greek translation does not help you here, Because if we substitute it back in, It reads like this: For God so loved the world, That everyone believing in him should not perish, But have everlasting life.

See? It reads the exact same way, So that translation does not help your point.

It's funny that you reference John 3:18, Because it completely goes against your point. If Jesus only died for certain people, That means some people cannot be held accountable for rejecting him because they never got the choice. However, Verse 18 says "he that believeth not is condemned already, Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " Here, They are being held accountable for NOT believing in Jesus, But that makes no sense in the Calvinist view because Jesus never died for them in the first place and therefore they never had the opportunity to make such a decision.

"This is easily resolved. God's means of salvation is by people hearing the gospel and believing in it, So there is a point in missionaries. Otherwise, The elect wouldn't hear the gospel! Also, We don't know who the unsaved elect are. "

This is incorrect. Again, In Romans 1:20, The Bible says "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, Being understood from what has been made, So that men are without excuse. " This clearly shows that word of mouth is not necessary for God to spread his Word. In Calvinism, You say that the elect will be irresistably attracted to God and will eventually go to him, So this should be true without regard to any missionaries.

"There seems to be a misconception here. People consciously make the choice to reject God (Romans 1). The debate here is about whether and who will come. They can't come because of their depraved nature, And this affects their choices. God says whosoever will, Come. He's inviting the people who want to come, To do so! People will only be able to if their spirit is made new, And they are born again. "

You say they make the choice to reject God, But then you say that only those that God invites can become a Christian, And they do so irresistibly. If that's true, Then they cannot be responsible for that choice because by what YOU said, They do not have the option to choose Jesus in the first place.

"Remember that God saving us at all isn't fair, Because we deserve condemnation! So choosing to save us at all is good enough! "

Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. " We only deserve condemnation because of our flawed nature and because of the sin we have done. However, God created us that way! The only thing that justifies this is that he gives everyone an 'escape route' per se in the form of Jesus. However, If he doesn't allow some people to accept Jesus, How can you say that they deserve it? They are simply doing what their nature tells them to do, And they literally have no choice in the matter. All sin is a choice, So that is contradictory.

"Since God has set aside the Levitical system of animal sacrifices (v. 9), Those who abandon their confession of trust in Christ have nowhere to turn for forgiveness. Christ says in John that nothing can take away the sheep He has under His wing, Including themselves! "

Where does it say that "nothing" includes onself? It says nothing can TAKE us away, But how can we "take" ourselves away? That verb obviously does not include oneself. If we walk away from God, That is not "taking, " because "taking" implies a lack of agreement in the matter. Yes, God set aside animal sacrifices, But Jesus himself is described as the ultimate sacrifice, And he is certianly not an animal.


"If we could lose our salvation, You realize that salvation would be works based, Right? "

This is not even remotely true. In this case, God is saying that if someone knows of Jesus and God and they continue to sin anyway that they're not deserving of Jesus. That is simply them rejecting Jesus in the form of continuing to sin.

"You seem to be ignoring the word predestined, Which was part of my original argument. "

I did not, I had a whole paragraph about it. Here it is again:

"The Calvinist contends that certain individuals were chosen before the world began and predestined to become believers, But that is simply not what the text says. Paul. . . never says that certain individuals were predestined to believe in Christ. Paul is speaking of what “the faithful in Christ” (vs. 1) have been predestined to become, Not about God preselecting certain individuals before the foundation of the world to be irresistibly transformed into believers. "'

Again, The source for this is in my profile comments.

"The passage I gave earlier says, "all that the Father gives me, WILL come to me. You are basically affirming universalism then if God gives everyone to Jesus! "

I explained this above.

"In looking at the context, You disregard what the verse actually says. It is talking about belief, And how the Gentiles who were appointed to eternal life believed! The actual verse's content seemed to be missing from your rebuttal"

My point was that this is not proof of an "elect. " God was showing that he could give his grace to more than just Jews because the Jews at the time, Even though they had been in God's presence for a while, Did not accept, While the Gentiles who hadn't dwelled in God for such a long time did.

"A question: Why are people in hell paying for their sins? I thought Jesus paid for them? Isn't that double jeopardy? "

I don't mean to offend you, But this is just ignorant. Jesus did die and pay for our sins, But we have to accept that in order to get into heaven. God will not allow sinners into his presence, And so a conscious choice must be made.

Debate Round No. 3
Jukebox101

Pro

There is no indication of this in the scripture. It says "for all men" in verse 1 and simply chooses an example in verse 2. There is no indication that he was narrowing what "all" meant.

Ok, So when context limits something, It should explicitly say, "hey, All here doesn't mean all"? Show what the context means before rebutting someone else's view!

Proverbs 16:4

You haven't explained what Proverbs 16:4 means. If this verse does not support my view, What does it mean?

But that also means that God created certain people who he wouldn't allow to go to heaven no matter what because he won't allow them to choose Jesus, Meaning that he sentences them to hell simply because he created them.

You seem to be implying that unbelievers want to come to God naturally, Which is surely false, For Paul says in Romans 3:10-17, "

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. ”

No offense, But be more clear and try to understand what I'm actually saying, Instead of repeatedly using straw men to debunk me.
He doesn't sentence people to hell just because He created them. Obviously! That is not what I believe! Proverbs says he made them for the "day of trouble. " read the verse! He didn't create them to sin, He created them, And they were afterwards affected by it.


As for the verse in Romans (no excuse) does this mean people can be saved without hearing the gospel?

If you are willing to use Albert Barnes to prove your points, Don't pick and choose what to believe of his and what not to. You'll agree with his interpretation there, But not other verses that he believes show Calvinism!


As for 1 Peter, THE WORD YOU IS THE ANTECEDENT! I'm not wrong if you don't understand simple grammar! Peter says that He is patient towards you, not wishing that any (antecedent, Context, Indicate of you) should perish. Peter is writing to believers, So it would make no sense to randomly say all without an antecedent!


Yes! Everyone who believes, Won't perish! Logic agrees! It doesn't mean all can believe, It just says all that will believe will not perish! Again, I can't help you with simple grammar. Whoever is gonna believe, Is gonna believe!



It might help you to go to Ligonier Ministries and learn what Calvinism actually believes, Instead of me having to constantly disregard straw men. No offense.


Why does everyone have to have a choice? Did you get to choose your intelligence, Or your looks, Or your stubborness, Or where you were born, Or how cool you are?

Here's an analogy that illustrates my problem with your belief: God is a scientist. He has the cure for sin (salvation). He goes to a graveyard. The people there are dead in their sins. He lays it on a table for them, And says as loudly as He can (to spiritually dead people) COME, TAKE OF MY EVERLASTING LIFE, BELIEVE IN MY SON! No one comes, Because they are spiritually unable to. Hopefully this illustrates a point.


You didn't answer my question. Why are people paying for sins in hell that Jesus died for? After all, It says in John 2:2: And He is the propitiation for our sins, And not for ours only, But also for those of the whole world. "


What does it mean in 1 Peter when it talks about confirming your election? What does Romans 9 mean when it says, "Esau I hated, But Jacob I loved?

We will disregard perserverance of saints for now, These arguments we are going at now are enough. I do agree with Albert Barnes' interpretation, That was a mistake of mine.


Over to you.

Speedrace

Con

"Ok, So when context limits something, It should explicitly say, "hey, All here doesn't mean all"? Show what the context means before rebutting someone else's view! "

I never said that, But there is no indication that he is limiting the "all. " You can't simply assume that he is because it supports your point, You have to back it up.

"You haven't explained what Proverbs 16:4 means. If this verse does not support my view, What does it mean? "

It's not my job to explain every verse, All I need to do is rebut your points and back up my own.

"You seem to be implying that unbelievers want to come to God naturally, Which is surely false"

So that means that God creates people so that they CANNOT go to God naturally. That's my point. ALL they know is sin.

"No offense, But be more clear and try to understand what I'm actually saying, Instead of repeatedly using straw men to debunk me.
He doesn't sentence people to hell just because He created them. Obviously! That is not what I believe! Proverbs says he made them for the "day of trouble. " read the verse! He didn't create them to sin, He created them, And they were afterwards affected by it. "

I was not straw manning. YOU literally just said that THEY CANNOT GO TO GOD NATURALLY. Since God created them and WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO CHOOSE HIM, ALL they can do is SIN. They HAVE NO CHOICE.

"As for the verse in Romans (no excuse) does this mean people can be saved without hearing the gospel? "

Yes.

"If you are willing to use Albert Barnes to prove your points, Don't pick and choose what to believe of his and what not to. You'll agree with his interpretation there, But not other verses that he believes show Calvinism! "

I was not, I was pointing out that a respected figure of YOUR faith disagrees with what YOU said.

"As for 1 Peter, THE WORD YOU IS THE ANTECEDENT! I'm not wrong if you don't understand simple grammar! Peter says that He is patient towards you, not wishing that any (antecedent, Context, Indicate of you) should perish. Peter is writing to believers, So it would make no sense to randomly say all without an antecedent! "

YOU IS A PRONOUN. WHAT PRONOUNS REFER TO ARE ANTECEDENTS. And you say I don't understand simple grammar?

Again, I was talking about SECOND Peter, Not FIRST Peter. In that scripture, There is NO indication that they are limiting the "you" to any specific group of people. You did not show where you got this supposed antecedent from, But "you" is a pronoun.

"Yes! Everyone who believes, Won't perish! Logic agrees! It doesn't mean all can believe, It just says all that will believe will not perish! Again, I can't help you with simple grammar. Whoever is gonna believe, Is gonna believe! "

Precisely, So those who God WON'T ALLOW TO CHOOSE JESUS CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN, And they HAVE TO SIN. Christians are the ONLY ones who can CHOOSE to sin by YOUR logic.

"Why does everyone have to have a choice? Did you get to choose your intelligence, Or your looks, Or your stubborness, Or where you were born, Or how cool you are? "

This is a straw man. None of those things have to do with a choice. Second of all, If you don't have a choice like YOU just said, The ONLY thing you can do is SIN. But then God is punishing us for the ONLY thing that we can do?

"Here's an analogy that illustrates my problem with your belief: God is a scientist. He has the cure for sin (salvation). He goes to a graveyard. The people there are dead in their sins. He lays it on a table for them, And says as loudly as He can (to spiritually dead people) COME, TAKE OF MY EVERLASTING LIFE, BELIEVE IN MY SON! No one comes, Because they are spiritually unable to. Hopefully this illustrates a point. "

EXACTLY, THIS PROVES MY POINT. NONE of them can come to him, So he lets SOME. But then he throws the others in hell, Even though they COULDN'T choose him in the first place becaue he NEVER LET THEM. They LITERALLY COULD NOT BUT IN YOUR VIEW HE STILL PUNISHES THEM FOR IT.

"You didn't answer my question. Why are people paying for sins in hell that Jesus died for? After all, It says in John 2:2: And He is the propitiation for our sins, And not for ours only, But also for those of the whole world. "

Because they refuse to acknowledge him or to accept his gift.

"What does it mean in 1 Peter when it talks about confirming your election? "

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Confirming an "elect" is your point.

What does Romans 9 mean when it says, "Esau I hated, But Jacob I loved? "

This was referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, Both of those men's descendants. God was showing how, Even though Esau was the first born, He could do whatever he wanted through whomever he wanted, AKA, Using Jacob to eventually birth Jesus. The "elect" were the Jews, The ones chosen to continue the line all the way to Mary, And obviously after that, Jesus.

"We will disregard perserverance of saints for now, These arguments we are going at now are enough"

Unless you run out of characters, Please respond to everything.
Debate Round No. 4
Jukebox101

Pro

But there is no indication that he is limiting the "all. "

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, Not willing that any should perish, But that all should come to repentance.

There is no indication here that the all means every single person who is on the earth without exception. If it meant every single person without exception, He would then be read as going back and forth between universal and some. It seems kind of eisegetical to read in any as every single person without exception, Randomly in the text. Notice Peter says he is long-suffering to US-ward, Not willing that any. . . Limiting any is obvious by the context, And henceforth all. But all of what? Cats? Dogs? Random people debating online? No. All of the us Peter was referring to. It is obvious the us limits the any and all, And refers to believers.

It's not my job to explain every verse, All I need to do is rebut your points and back up my own.

If you can't explain this verse in another way than I am, I don't see a need to accept your rebuttal, Especially when it doesn't actually deal with the verse itself.

So that means that God creates people so that they CANNOT go to God naturally. That's my point. ALL they know is sin.

No offense, But this is a seriously ignorant response. He doesn't create them for that, He creates them knowing they will do that. There's a difference. You didn't even acknowledge the Bible verses I provided. I'd rather believe what the Bible says. What does dead in trespasses mean? That they want to come to God? ! I mean, Come on!

I was not straw manning. YOU literally just said that THEY CANNOT GO TO GOD NATURALLY. Since God created them and WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO CHOOSE HIM, ALL they can do is SIN. They HAVE NO CHOICE.

- Again, This doesn't mean He created them for that, He created them knowing they would do that. They cannot come to God naturally. If you think they can, That's dangerously close to Pelagianism. For, "No man can come to me, Except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. " The Bible's word against yours. Your originally conclusion was a straw man, That was what I was meaning. Its this "choice" versus the Bible. If you reference the passage from Joshua, That is referring to serving the Lord, Not salvation.

Yes.

No offense, But this is very unbiblical (maybe even heretical). Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. " There is NO POINT to saying this if there is another way to salvation. Jesus is the gospel, The good news! He Himself calls people to repent and BELIEVE! The Bible's word against yours. For, "I am the way, The truth, And the life; NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me. "

I was not, I was pointing out that a respected figure of YOUR faith disagrees with what YOU said

I can go along with that.

YOU IS A PRONOUN. WHAT PRONOUNS REFER TO ARE ANTECEDENTS. And you say I don't understand simple grammar?

Did you forget that antecedents can refer to pronouns?

Again, I was talking about SECOND Peter, Not FIRST Peter.

Minute detail, Arbitrary.

In that scripture, There is NO indication that they are limiting the "you" to any specific group of people. You did not show where you got this supposed antecedent from, But "you" is a pronoun.

There is, And I did. Read the verse, And above.

This is a straw man. None of those things have to do with a choice. Second of all, If you don't have a choice like YOU just said, The ONLY thing you can do is SIN. But then God is punishing us for the ONLY thing that we can do?

A straw man is a false representation of someone's belief. What I wrote is an argument, Not what you believe. (? ) Sin is not the only thing they can do. It's what their nature is inclined to unless God changes it. Again, What does dead in trespasses mean?

EXACTLY, THIS PROVES MY POINT. NONE of them can come to him, So he lets SOME. But then he throws the others in hell, Even though they COULDN'T choose him in the first place becaue he NEVER LET THEM. They LITERALLY COULD NOT BUT IN YOUR VIEW HE STILL PUNISHES THEM FOR IT

You realize I was representing what you believe here, In a semi-satirical way. (? ) He punishes them for sin. God is the creator, I'm not going to tell Him what to do with His creation, And I'm certainly not warp scripture to make him what i want him to be.

Because they refuse to acknowledge him or to accept his gift.

Does it say He offers propitiation to the world, Or does it say that He is the propitiation? Blatant eisegesis. You are reading offer into that verse!

- Don't worry about the "elect" in Peter, Not sure where I was going with that.

This was referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, Both of those men's descendants.

Nations are made up of people. The words love and hate are still there!



This has been an interesting debate.

Blessings,

-Juke
Speedrace

Con


I'd like to apologize for yelling in the previous round, I got kind of frustrated :/

"There is no indication here that the all means every single person who is on the earth without exception. "

All: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

If it meant every single person without exception, He would then be read as going back and forth between universal and some. It seems kind of eisegetical to read in any as every single person without exception, Randomly in the text. "

How is that eisegetical? I could turn it around say it is eisegetical for you to read it as not referring to the whole earth. You have not explained how this doesn't refer to everyone.

"Notice Peter says he is long-suffering to US-ward, Not willing that any. . . Limiting any is obvious by the context, And henceforth all. But all of what? Cats? Dogs? Random people debating online? No. All of
the us Peter was referring to. It is obvious the us limits the any and all, And refers to believers. "

Limiting of any is not obvious. For what reason would he do that? You can't simply say it's obvious and not say why.

"If you can't explain this verse in another way than I am, I don't see a need to accept your rebuttal, Especially when it doesn't actually deal with the verse itself. "

That's not true, If you told me that you saw an alien ship that was zooming through the sky faster than light, I could prove to you that it wasn't what you thought because nothing can go faster than light. Is it then my job to prove what it was? No.

"No offense, But this is a seriously ignorant response. He doesn't create them for that, He creates them knowing they will do that. There's a difference. You didn't even acknowledge the Bible verses I provided. I'd rather believe what the Bible says. What does dead in trespasses mean? That they want to come to God? ! I mean, Come on! "

I never said that they want to come to God, You said that they can't because he won't allow them to. If they don't want to in the first place, Why does God have to take away the choice? That seems like overkill.

If I have two children, And I teach one that 1+2=3, And the other that 1+2=4, And then make them solve the problem, Do I penalize the second one when he/she gets it wrong? How is that even remotely fair? The answer is it isn't.

"Again, This doesn't mean He created them for that, He created them knowing they would do that. They cannot come to God naturally. If you think they can, That's dangerously close to Pelagianism. For, "No man can come to me, Except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. " The Bible's word against yours. Your originally conclusion was a straw man, That was what I was meaning. Its this "choice" versus the Bible. If you reference the passage from Joshua, That is referring to serving the Lord, Not salvation. "

Here is a nice example of what I believe that verse means:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me *enables* them, And I will raise up *those who come* at the last day. ”

You can be enabled and not actually end up choosing to get saved, Like Judas.
My point is that you believe that some people go to hell for sinning, Even though they literally cannot be saved, But the only people who do go to heaven are the ones who consciously sin because they know of Jesus.

"No offense, But this is very unbiblical (maybe even heretical). Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. " There is NO POINT to saying this if there is another way to salvation. Jesus is the gospel, The good news! He Himself calls people to repent and BELIEVE! The Bible's word against yours. For, "I am the way, The truth, And the life; NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me. ""

"My bad, I don't think I was being clear. I didn't mean that they can come through a way besides Jesus, I was saying that you don't have to hear of Jesus by word of mouth. For example, God might reveal himself through the awesomeness of nature to someone in a remote jungle somewhere who will never meet a missionary. That's what I meant. Most people do hear of Jesus by word of mouth, But I was just saying that that isn't always the case.

"Did you forget that antecedents can refer to pronouns? "

You still never said what the antecedent was. "You" is not specific enough to make your point.

"A straw man is a false representation of someone's belief. What I wrote is an argument, Not what you believe. (? ) Sin is not the only thing they can do. It's what their nature is inclined to unless God changes it. Again, What does dead in trespasses mean? "

So they can choose to come to Christ? But you said that they can only do that if God chooses them. . . Which means that sinning is the only thing they can do. I'm genuinely confused on what you mean here when you say I straw-manned; if you can't choose Jesus, Then the only other option is that you can only sin.

"You realize I was representing what you believe here, In a semi-satirical way. (? ) He punishes them for sin. God is the creator, I'm not going to tell Him what to do with His creation, And I'm certainly not warp scripture to make him what i want him to be. "

Again, Your model does not line up with the loving God who the Bible describes. Why would a loving God force a certain part of the population to go to hell by nothing that they can control?

"Does it say He offers propitiation to the world, Or does it say that He is the propitiation? Blatant eisegesis. You are reading offer into that verse! "

This is an obvious straw man. Him being the propitiation is the offer. If I go to pay for your check, But you stop me, That's you refusing my gift. He's saying that anyone who acceps him has his sins paid for.

"Nations are made up of people. The words love and hate are still there! "

You completely ignored what I said. God was showing how age or nationality or anything else doesn't matter to him because he will offer salvation to any and everyone. The Bible never implies that Esau died in bad standing with God. He was showing how he chose the Israelites to be the line which Jesus comes through, And how much he had done for them, But they continually rejected him, While nations such as Esau's descendants readily came to him.

Read this scripture:


"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, Wife and children, Brothers and sisters, Yes, And his own life also, He cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26)"

Does that mean that we need to literally hate our family? No, Because we know we are commanded to love everyone. This is Jesus saying we must esteem him more than our loved ones, And God was saying in that scripture that he esteemed Jacob's descendants more than Esau's.

Again, I apologize if I got a little bit heated. This was a fun debate, Maybe we can have another one some time soon. :)

God bless!
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
Dude, You're only hurting yourself here. You're the one getting mad.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Jukebox101,

Whoops, As usual, The pseudo-christian Jukebox101 didn't address my questions to him, What's new?

Here, Let me repost it again, And see how many times you have to run away from it to at least try and save face to your cohorts in crime, Okay? Here it is, Again:

" Jesus is watching you RUN AWAY from at least trying to defend his faith (Proverbs 15:3)".

Now, Can you, Or can you not, Defend your primitive Christianity regarding your pagan church of Sovereign Grace Churches, Whereas your church is involved in coverups of buggering innocent children as shown by searching Google? Furthermore, Can you defend your brutal serial killer god named Yahweh in his outright murdering of innocent babies and fetus', But at the same time, He is said to be all loving and forgiving? As shown, You continue to RUN AWAY from these biblical axioms, Why?

Don't you realize that others are watching you RUN AWAY from your bible and your pagan faith, By using child like excuses, And letting an Atheist "so easily own you? " Huh?

Whats your NEXT EXCUSE going to be? LOL
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
Because (1) you are using capital letters (2) you are using ad hominem and (3) you use exclamation marks. Lol @speedrace yeah
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Jukebox101,

Nobody, And especially me, Is getting mad whatsoever. How can I personally be mad in showing you to be a delusional hypocritical pseudo-christian? I relish this fact, Whereas you can only RUN AWAY from my me proving you to be just another RUN AWAY Christian!

JB101, Jesus is watching you RUN AWAY from at least trying to defend his faith (Proverbs 15:3), So I suggest you start wearing asbestos suits to be safe, Because of where you are going upon your demise!

Pseudo-christians, They are so fun to easily play with, At their expense again. :(

NEXT?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Ikr @Jukebox xD
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
Why are you wasting your time? If there is no point, Why are you getting so mad?
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
JUKEBOX101 QUOTE: "What your saying is pretty silly tbh, And is useless to talk to you. All I did was copy your structure of whatever that was you said. "

HELLO JESUS, In Jukebox101, You have another runaway pseudo-christian that is using child like excuses to RUNAWAY from defending your primtive faith like you stated in the bible many times to do!

JUKEBOX101, Listen, I don"t blame you for RUNNING AWAY from any discussion regarding your complete ignorance of your faith, AND, The blatant facts that your church relative to child sexual abuse coverups is making the Catholic faith sexual abuse look like a Girl Scout Picnic!

YOUR QUOTE: "All I did was copy your structure of whatever that was you said". Your quote is equal to PARROTING, Period, That specifically states that you don"t have a mind of your own when dealing with your archaic Christianity, Well done!

The following describes you to the letter, To wit:

"Hi DEBATE. ORG, My name is Jukebox101, And I subsribe to a serial killing Jesus, As explicitly shown within my Bronze and Iron Age Bible, By praying to him, Supplicating to him, And accepting his brutal killing nature of innocent children, Babies and fetus, " etc. , Pretty cool, Huh? BUT, At the same time, I want to be shown respect nonethess with my primitive barbaric thinking in the 21st century, Okay? Thank you. "

Jukebox101, You are excused, For now.
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
If you like to believe everything that you read, That's fine. I really just don't care about your insipid remarks, Which aren't anything new either. I just don't care to list my denomination. I didn't even mention Catholics. What your saying is pretty silly tbh, And is useless to talk to you. All I did was copy your structure of whatever that was you said.
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
Jukebox101,

As usual, When the pseudo-christian like Jukebox101 finds themselves in embarrassing territory because of their primitive Christian division of faith, They have to resort to "parroting" the Atheist to try and save face. Whats new? Absolutely nothing!

I understand that you cannot list the archaic DIVISION of Christianity in your bio page, But rarely does the inept pseudo-christian like you list it in their feeble debates at the onset. Why? Are you too embarrassed to do so Jukebox101, As if you need any more laughs against you in the 21st century.

I am a plain ol" Atheist, That loathes pseudo-christians like you because of what your primitive faith has done to many.

As for your DIVISION of Christianity, The insipid Sovereign Grace Church, Are you trying to "one-up" the Catholics with innocent sexual child abuse? All one has to do is Google "Sovereign Grace Churches sexual abuses" to see that the press you are getting relative buggering little children is equal to the despicable Catholics and JWs. You must be so proud, Yes?

As explicitly shown, Your biblical ignorance has no bounds, Of which I will point out to you on future occasions, And yes, Once again, At your expense.
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
I love this! At least you are honest.

My branch isn't listed on the website's options. I am with Sovereign Grace Churches.

As if 21stCenturyIconoclast's presuppositional atheism isn't silly enough within the scope of our reality, They accept that this pursuit of knowledge is actually worthwhile. Oh wait, None of this matters anyway, Remember, Whoops!

21stCentury Iconoclast, Is it possible for you to tell me in an absolute manner in what DIVISION of the useless atheist belief you have swallowed? This is because most God-haters like you, They just list "atheist" on their bio page without telling us what comical branch of this silly belief that they hang their hat upon. Hopefully you are not too embarrassed to tell me, Okay?

Thanking you in advance, At your expense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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