The Great Commission negates Calvinism/predestination teaching

Poisoning the Well: If you will check your source, you’ll see poisoning the well is when one commits an ad-hominen, (attacking the person giving the argument rather than the argument itself). So you can’t call what I’ve done that technically speaking because I do not attack you by calling it Pantheist Free Will, In fact I think I’ve only shown respect for you personally so far, even if I do disagree with your theology. The only thing the terminology I use you could say attacks is the argument itself, meaning it can’t be called any form of an ad-homien. However like I said, its not an actual argument I’m giving, just a professional tactic in persuasion. What you call poison I call sugar diluter. Anyway addressing the older arguments first Argument from Secondary Causes/ Ezekiel analogy: contrary to how Con perceives this debates progress, I did in fact respond to his point about secondary causes, in was under the Ezekiel analogy though as I perceived though as being the same point. Hope that cleared things up. Con tries to pass off whether Ezekiel is responsible to be irrelevant and a separate topic for debate. It is in fact very relevant however as my explaining the dilemma between your view and evangelism laid the groundwork for my ultimate concluding charge which you did find relevant enough to respond to, so I will let my unchallenged groundwork rest this final round to focus my character space on your rebuttal. Con say’s my ultimate conclusion that his system makes God out to be a liar is easily reconciled by… “…pointing out a distinction between God's sovereign will (what God does) and his moral will (what God commands). ” I’m a little flabbergasted that Con actually said this in the debate as if that settled the point for his side and not mine, or that he actually said this and didn’t see how crazy that sounds logically considering he even spelled out what the he means by sovereign will and moral will. He’s entire statement could be paraphrased this way without changing his meaning at all… “There is a difference between what God tells us and what God actually does ergo he is not a liar” Exactly what do you think it would take to call someone a liar then? How do you not see you basically just defined what a liar is and ascribed that attribute to God. You just said what he say’s and what he does contradicts. Anyway I carried by analogy in its relevance to Jesus Great Commission, and Con quotes where Paul said “Christ died for OUR sins” as if that makes point. On the contrary it makes mine, because Paul said he died for ‘OUR’ sins, he didn’t tell the people he died for ‘MY’ sins and ‘MABYE YOURS’. And as for what Jesus said in John 10, I invite the audience to read the whole parable here. . http://www.biblegateway.com... and turn your attention to 10:9 in particular “I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved and will come in and go out and find pasture. ” Sounds a lot like the sheep that can enter through his door is anyone that try to come through him, as long as they do not seek some other way in avoiding him, those are the way thieves come in. The sheep in the parable are not even the complete set he plans to lay down his life for as he describes the addition of the gentiles later in 10:16. If one needs any more evidence that how broad our Lords flock is and that it encompasses the whole world, not just a pre-selected part of it according to the gospel we don’t need to look much farther than everyone’s favorite verse John 3:16 ‘for God so loved the WORLD he gave…. ’ “Under libertarianism, no antecedent condition is sufficient to explain a person's conversion. ”: That’s kind of the point of libertarianism and Free Will Con. If there was an antecedent condition then it would not actually be free will, it would be your Pantheist free will. There being no antecedent condition that explains a persons choice is only a problem for Atheist, for the atheist must find natural causes and explanation for everything, everything ties back to the Universe and whatever the great ‘theory of everything’ is. We on the other hand believe in God, we allow for the supernatural because we are Theist. We allow that our soul is more than a brainwave, more than an organ affected by chemical reactions, we allow that are soul has spiritual substance to it and is eternal and will last forever somewhere if not here on earth. Now if you are a Pantheist I suppose you do still have to have an antecedent condition for choices, but Christianity is not even remotely compatible with Pantheism because miracles are not allowable by there beliefs. 1 Corinthians 10:13: Con say’s my argument from this passage is irrelevant. It is relevant however, and its certainly at the very least as relevant as your own argument about Libertarian free will being in degrees so I am not about to let to point go. “there shall come no temptation you cannot overcome” is relevant to the nature of the choice that goes on in the witnessing scenario relevant to the resolution. And when a evangelist comes to preach the gospel to you when you are unsaved, there is a temptation to ignore the evangelist. Unbelief is a temptation. Being Apostate is a temptation. And by temptation I mean these things are sins we are tempted towards. Unless you challenge that blasphemy is actually not a sin and thus debate over the promised nature of temptation is irrelevant, then the passage in Corinthians remains very relevant to the debate. Unknown elect: as long your dropping arguments then I guess I shall too for space. I see what you mean about that being speculative and this really wasn’t my strongest case anyway. Cons new arguments: The gospels not just an invitation…: retrospectively I should have started the debate quoting this passage, commonly called the Great Commission Matthew 28:19-20 “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…. and teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you…. ” It is in fact a command to baptize everyone in all the nations, and to make disciples out of them all, and to teach them all to obey gods command. In short go convert everybody. Non-Christians are influenced by Jesus teachings…: You are confused. Just because the atheist and agnostics on this website commonly like to say Jesus had some good teachings so they can feel all moderate like there reasonably meeting you half-way does not mean Jesus has influenced them. They decided for themselves we shouldn’t judge other people is bad and so they are happy they see in Jesus this value they picked out for themselves. They just as easily quote however society, social order or taboos, or other ancient philosophers for there most preferred since of right and wrong. Jesus is only a true influence in restraining there sin if they recognize his authority. Jesus only has authority recognized as the Son of God, the Word, the great I AM. Those that recognize this authority are not lost they are saved. The unforgivable sin of blaspheme…: You can’t commit blaspheme against the Holy Spirit when Jesus had yet to send them ‘the Advocate’ or to teach the people about it. So presumably no, this sin had not been committed except by those witnessed to. Conclusion:The very idea of being commanded to witness starts to fall apart in a Calvinist view of theology when we look at all these specifics in witnessing context. And so the Great Commision makes no sense if we accapt the Calvinist Pantheist model and the resolution is affirmed.