Calvinism is heretical

Thank you Acvara, I will begin by systematically addressing each of my oponents points with the exception of Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace. 1) Total DepravityAcvarva begins his attack on the doctrines of grace by claiming that Total Depravity and Total Innability are separate and distinct from each other. He specifies this difference by saying “This (Total Inability) means that man is so depraved that he cannot repent and accept the Gospel by his own free will.”. Effectually what Acvara is saying is that dispite mans corrupt nature there is a bastion of righteousness and hope in the nature of man the permits him to freely choose to believe in the gospel. ***Total Depravity/Total Inability There is NO difference between Total Depravity and Total Inability. The terms are used exchangingly to more specifically in certain circumstances to more accuratley describe what both terms represent. The opening wikipedia article uses both terms to describe the same idea:“Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine derived from the Augustinian concept of original sin.” (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Here is a quote from Jacobus Arminius describing the condition of human will:“Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace.... This grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co operates lest we will in vain.[ “(http://en.wikipedia.org...) Arminius effectually is saying that man left by himself without any form of grace form God is ‘unable’ to begin and spiritual good. His depiction of the human will is to effect the exact same result detailed in Total Dipravity: “The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God.”(http://en.wikipedia.org...) Notice how man is not inclined only but also not ‘able’. Hence, Total Inability is synonomous to Total Depravity. ***Semi-PelagianismInstead, what Acvara is actually detailing of man having some form are unscathed ability to chose the gospel apart from God first intervening is actually semi-Pelagianism. A system of soteriology that Arminians and Calvinists have declared heretical.For space conservation I ask Acvara and the reader to compare what Acvara describes as his form of Total Depravity with semi-Pelagianism here: http://en.wikipedia.org... ***Verses used by AcvaraNone of the verses actually determine that man can on his own ability choose the gospel apart from a form of grace from God. Eph 1:13 says only that when one believes they are sealed with the promised Holy SpiritJohn 1:12 says that those who believed were given the right to becone children of GodJohn 3:16 says that those who believe will have eternal life None of these verses say that man has the ability in himself to choose God. None of these veres refute the notion that one is regenerated, believes, and is saved and recieves the gift of the Holy Spirit. ***Adam in the gardenEverything happens according to the will of God Eph 1:11. This however aught to be resolved in a separate debate as it involves more of the sovereignty of God through redemptive history than it does on how God saves. ***Prevenient GraceI urge Acvara to study the true difference between Arminianism and Calvinism over Total Depravity by recognizing that they both believe the same Total Depravity but differ over how God remedies the condition. “The differences between the solutions to the problem of total depravity revolve around the relation between divine grace and human free will – namely, whether it is efficacious grace that human free will cannot resist, as in Calvinism, or prevenient grace enabling the human will to choose to follow God, as in Arminianism and Molinism.”(http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2) Unconditional Election***2 Peter 3:92 Peter 3:9 does not reference unconditional election at all. Instead it shows Gods revealed will in Gods desire that non perish (Elect/reprobate). Also, the context of 2 Peter 3:9 is refering to “those who have obtained a faith…” 1v1, “beloved” 3v1 “patient towards you” 3v9 the ‘you’ in 3v9 is the peoples in 1v1 and 3v1, Christians (elect). There is nothin ‘nonsensical’ in God revealing He wishes none to perish while predestining the elect to salvation, nor does it negate Unconditional Election. 1 Peter 1:2Acvara must demonstrate that Gods predestining is via foreknowledge resulting in God rewarding those who believe because they chose to believe as opposed to God predestining according to His own pleasure, examine Romans 9:15-15: “For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”(ESV) Please note, “it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God” ***Other verses concerning predestining and choosingMatthew 22:14Mark 4:10-12Eph. 1:3-5 3 + 4) Limited Atonement + Irresistable GraceIn the comments we have agreed to lightly discuss these two points and discuss them more heavily in a separate debate for the sake of space (charaters currently at 7361). Instead, Acvara has addressed more of Irresistable Grace and Limited Atonement then he has Unconditional Election. Unless our debate over the first two points are resolved before this debate ends I wil save my rebuttal for the next debate. If my oponent has changed his mind and desires my rebutal for these points I will post them in round 3. 5) Ad HomonimAcvara here attacks with a Ad Homonim. Servetus denied the Trinity (a doctrine held by Calvinists and Arminians alike) and infant baptism. He was accused and arrested in Vienne, escaped and was found in Geneva. He was burnt at the stake to prevent his heresy from spreading. Calvin had requested that he be beheaded as a traitor and not burnt at the stake as a heretic. Not only were the Reformers supportive of the condemnation but also the libertines who were oposed to Calvin and his teachings. The counsil that actually condemned him was not led by Calvin but by Perrin Tissot (a Libertine). Details can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org... The execution of Serventus has been used often to discount the theology known as Calvinism. Yet, the theology lists no tenet of execution for heresy and such acts should not be blamed because of it, but instead by blame should be on principles of thought at the time. 6) OtherAcvara calls me a Baptist. I lean towards Baptism theology in regards to its view on infant baptism but I do not consider myself a Baptist specifiacally in any form of eschatology. Calvins views on other doctrines that go beyond the scope of the TULIP have no weight in this debate. Orthopraxy should not be an indicator of the validity of orthodoxy. As to the other accounts of execution my opponent places against Calvin I have never heard of and ask that if it is not pertinent to the doctrine of Calvinism to stay to topics in regard to the theology. Thank you