A Biblical Debate : Total Depravity (CALVINISM)

In concluding this debate, it is unfortunate that it seems my opponent has been talking past my remarks, which seems indicative that he doesn’t quite understand the distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism. For instance, notice his reframing of the terms in his concluding remarks. “1. Man is utterly corrupt and makes utterly corrupt decisions and cannot do any good. (Total Depravity) 2. Man is utterly corrupt but can defy his nature to make a good decision. (Partial Depravity)” Going back to my point in the third round, let’s compare that definition to the one given by Pro in his opening remarks. “Humanity is depraved but still able to seek God. We are fallen and tainted by sin but not to the extent that we cannot chose to come to God and accept salvation, with the help of prevenient grace from God. Given such grace, human will is free and has the power to yield to the influence of the Spirit.”[1] Note the bolded text, then compare to the characterization in the conclusion. At no point does he in this debate, is he consistent with this definition, and proceeded to deconstruct a strawman argument. He also did not directly rebuttal my arguments from Round 2, and on these points alone Pro should lose this debate. However, I will respond to the rest of his concluding statements below. Rebuttal | Apple-Peach Tree and Other Mischaracterizations Pro has attempted to characterize my position as some kind of arbitrary decision making, by using an analogy of a tree and the kinds of fruit that it can bear. He is claiming that my argument asserts that apple trees can produce peaches, when this is just another example of his failure to understand the position I have defended. Nowhere did I mention such a decision, but rather emphasized the Biblical writings pertaining to the necessity of grace which “opens [the] heart to understand.”[2] Pro then moves on to talk about how my position regarding what the Biblical writers think on election doesn’t cognate with the word “predestination,” in order to assert such he has to again mischaracterize my position. As I explicitly said, “Rather, Paul argues that it was always god’s intention to make a way for the Gentiles via the disobedience of the Jews, which in a strange way was all about making the Jews jealous as well.” In other words, it wasn’t individuals who were predestined to salvation, but the fact that god would extend his salvation to both Gentiles and Jews through Jesus Christ. This isn’t the heart of the debate which I accepted, so textual backing is not necessary for this particular contention. Concluding Statements As previously stated, the reasons for voting Con are quite clear. Pro did not address any of the arguments I presented in Round 2. Pro was not consistent in his characterization of Partial Depravity, which he provided a definition for. Pro’s Apple-Peach Tree analogy is guilty of the fallacy of the weak analogy. Pro did not characterize my position of Corporate Election. I was able to address examples of his proof-texting and how he did not actually support these texts with a detailed exegesis. In the future, I recommend that Pro better defines the terms and positions which are to be adopted in his debates. As he seemed to be arguing against pelagianism[3] when in fact he quoted the position about Partial Depravity from a page titled, “What is Arminianism, and is it biblical?” In Biblical theology, there is a great deal of middle ground within those positions, and Pro would do well to further learn about those distinctions as a result of this debate I hope. Kind Regards, TS [1]http://www.gotquestions.org... [2] Acts 16:14 (paraphrase) [3] http://www.theopedia.com...