Calvinism

Pro said:” Now concerning Total Depravity, my opponent is claiming that if a non-elect person were to beg to God on his knees to not send him to Hell, it wouldnt matter because God would still send him to Hellbecause God just DID NOT CHOOSE HIM. Sound fair?” Rebuttal: No, that does not sound fair. You defined Total Depravity in your opening statement. Shall I remind you: “This means that man is so depraved that he cannot repent and accept the Gospel by his own free will. God has to regenerate you and only if your one of the elect.” A non-elect person begging God on his knees not to send him to Hell is a doctrinal impossibility. Total Depravity maintained. =================================­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Pro said: “Further, when God told Adam to not eat from the tree, God was really willing it for Adam to eat from the tree. It wasn't Adam's free will that did it, God willed it to happen and then punished Adam for it afterwards! “ Rebuttal: Interesting objection. Let’s say that Adam did have free will. Let’s assume that Adam choseto eat the apple. Does that mean God was surprised by Adam’s sin? Consider: Either, Adam chose to eat the Apple. God let it happen. Or, Adam was forced to eat the Apple. God let it happen. “Argh ye Matey! Seems we be in the same boat here!” Unfortunately, both examples end with God “electing”for sin to occur. Argument extended.================================= Pro said:” My opponent also glanced over John 3:16. ...... Ephesians 1:13 says"ye believed" AFTER "ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise."You BELIEVE FIRST, THEN get saved....” Rebuttal: Let’s read John 3 in context: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but thatthe world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. We can clearly see that Christ came to save someone. We can also see that the people he came to save are evil and furthermore, they like being evil. So if men love darkness, choosing it over light, then we haveevidence of a God-hating heart. Yet clearly, some do come to salvation. Now how is that possible? John 6:44 – “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:” I submit to the voter, the words of Jesus Christ. In John 6:44 we come to understand that no man can come to Jesus unless the father draws them to Christ. If this is not true then Christ is a liar and our faith is in vain. We cannot throw John 3:16 around as a staple of “free will”. Just three chapters later we are shown, by Jesus himself (the authority), that the mechanics of salvation require God to draw evil men unto Christ. Ignore this and stand in heresy. Next my opponent makes another heretical claim. Let us read Ephesians 1:13 again my friend: The real thing: in whom also after that ye believed (believe first), ye were sealed with that holySpirit of promise (then receive the spirit of God). Your thing: "ye believed" AFTER "ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise. I will comment no further on this until my opponent produces literal scripture to assert his point. Argument extended. ================================= Pro said: “Concerning Unconditional Election, Simon Peter said the "elect" were those "sprinkled by the blood of Christ." That sounds CONDITIONAL to me. You cant get the blood of Christ by being in Christ, but you have to trust Him first(Ephesians 1:13). Election is CONDITIONED upon SALVATION.” Rebuttal: This whole paragraph is quite the pile of nonsense. You can’t get the blood of Christ by being in Christ? Really? (Jaw drops) Anyways, let’s read what Peter actually wrote: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, untoobedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. The sprinkling of the blood of Christ refers to Levitican Law. Sprinkling the blood unto the Altar, as described in Leviticus, is the atonement for sin. This verse speaks to the reason of Peter’s sanctification, specifically that he pleads the blood of Christ for his sanctification. What does this have to do with the doctrine of election? Argument extended. ================================= Pro said: Now with Limited Atonement, my opponent is going to have to ignore a plethera of verses. ... Further my opponent quotes verses from Isaiah 53:8 and Matthew 1:21 which concerns THE JEWS NOT GENTILES.Unless my opponent is a Jew, then even he is not one of the elect if the elect are Jews. "His people" is a reference to Jews, not Gentiles. Rebuttal: This is not an ad hominem, but did you read the verses I supplied? Your rebuttal has absolutely zero relevance. The Gentiles have hope for salvation through Christ and are thus also “his people”. Perhaps Romans 11:17 would clarify this point: “And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being awild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;” Argument extended. ================================= Pro said: "This quote from Arminius hurts him more than helps him. It shows how much nicerArminius was compared to Calvin who killed people." Rebuttal: My opponent would paint Calvin with the “sinner” brush. I will whole-heartedly concede this point to the glory of God. Is it not amazing that a murderer like Calvin was inspired to unfold the Gospel to such a height that his adversaries called him a prophet? I dare say, only one man reached a more perverse depth of sinand offense unto God. That of course being the Apostle Paul, a man who called himself the “Chief of sinners”. On an unrelated note, he wrote most of the New Testament Bible. Sin (be it murder or slander or thievery) does not bar a man from confessing Christ and glorifying God. Luke 23:43 - And Jesus said unto him,Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Argument extended. ================================= Pro said: ” Further let me mention that John Calvin grew up as a Roman Catholic and kept many of their traditions: ..... Jacob Arminius was much more Protestant than Calvin, after all, Arminius rejected thesacraments of the Catholic Church.” Rebuttal: “Wonderful points. A little history about the doctrines of Grace, Calvin had little to do with them. As perthe source: “Calvinist theology is sometimes identified with the five points of Calvinism, also called the doctrines of grace,... and which serve as a summation of the judgments rendered by the Synod of Dort in 1619.Calvin himself never used such a model and never combated Arminianism directly. In fact, Calvin died in 1564 and Jacob Arminias was born in 1560, and so the men were not contemporaries. The Articles of Remonstrance were authored byopponents of reformed doctrine and Biblical Monergism. They were rejected in 1619 at the Synod of Dort, more than 50 years after the death of Calvin.” [1] Argument extended.================================= Pro said: Now the idea of God creating some people to be saved and others not to be saved is BLASPHEMOUS. Rebuttal: The Jews are the chosen, elected people of God. The Old Testament is the prime example in which God uses election to favor a few out of the many. I dare say it’s blasphemous to claim that God does NOT elect. Argument extended. ================================= http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]