Calvinism is heretical

Thank you Acvavra. My original rebuttal is tool long to post so I will focus only on the main points. The original rebutal in detail will be posted in the comments section. The text in bold are the sections I am responding to from Acvavra. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use to defend Calvinism on Total Depravity for a formal debate. A sourses validity is determined by its content. Wiki represents Calvinism faithfully. From an orthodox perspective in Protestantism soteriology one is either Calvinist, Lutheran, Arminian, or heretical (Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism). My opponent believes that for man to choose to accept Christ on his own free will is a works salvation, which is why he brings up semi-pelagianism. The Bible commands all to repent & believe, that none have the ability to do so, that a form of grace must come before them in order for one to believe. Acvavra clearly rejects this and effectually makes him unable to defend orthodoxy as any other view, is NOT orthodox, but heretical. The only other views of soteriology are Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. My opponent skirts my argument about Adam in the garden. Will be addressed at point : A Concerning 2 Peter 3:9 I have demonstrated from context that God willing to make known to the elect His desire that none of them shall perish while decreeing it and accomplishing it in the life of the church. Acvavra seemingly fails to observe that God operates in both from eternity and in temporal time and sapce. Now if the Calvinist is right on Unconditional Election, then God is the author of sin. Acvara makes a critical mistake here. He confuses Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism and quotes John Calvin as teaching hyper-Calvinism. This is not the case. He does this with each quote. Point: A Quotes of Calvin + Problem of Evil When Calvin speaks or ordaining and authoring evil he does not mean that God forces creation to do evil. That notion is hyper-Calvinism. What Calvin is saying is that God permits, ordains, and limits sin so that Gods purposes are established and carried out. Lets take Job for an example. Satan must petition to God to do evil to Job. God permits it with a limitation to not kill Job. So we see that evil is ‘authored’ in this manner for God to accomplish His will to ordain it. This lines up perfectly with Eph 1:11 while maintaing a just God. It is the view that God does not ordain evil that is 1) not substantiated in scripture and 2) has evil occuring for no reason. Such a notion has a non-sovereign God who is impotent to ordain all things for His purposes. It also must presuppose that evil has an origin outside of Gods purpose/sovereignty. Further, why did God create the non-elect? This issue is ambiguous to any mode of soteriology. It is an issue with sovereignty which all Christians who believe in a sovereign all knowing God must face. God created the non-elect knowing they would fall and reject the gospel. He did not force their will to do so. This is known as the Problem of Evil, and I believe Calvinism addresses it best over the other modes while remaining true to scripture. But this topic is not the objective of this debate. Romans 9:15 says man cannot force God to have mercy on him apart from the conditions God has given, which is receiving Christ as Saviour. Romans 9:15 the grace you speak of in Romans 9 is the mercy given to those 'before they had done any good or bad', so that 'Gods purpose in election might stand' Matt 22:14- "few are chosen" because few are willing to take the wedding garment in the context(verses 12-13). Matt 22:14: The context of the feast is with that of the previous two other parables. Its about the Jews rejection of Christ and the ingrafting of the Gentiles. Does God still choose? Yes. Eph 1:5, Romans 9, Numbers 16:5. Mark 4:10-12-Simply, the OT explains this, God blinded them so that they couldn't see and understand because their hearts were set to be wicked. And God took advantage of that in order to have the crucifixion happen so that THE WHOLE WORLD could be saved, even the gentiles. If they had beleived then they wouldn't have crucified Him, and guess where that would leave you and me and the billions of other souls that have come to faith in Christ since that time. Your first sentence mimicks EXACTLY how Calvinists view reprobation. What is interesting here is that you allow God here to do this yet when the Calvinist says He does it, its heretical? Because of scope? If Eph 1:11 means ALL things then even the non-saved were 1) foreknown and 2) ordained to be judged to hell. This does not mean that God forced their unbelief but instead gave them over to themselves because their hearts were ‘set to be wicked’. Also, your willing to say that these people were depraved beyond a point to that which God simply gave them over to themselves. But why just them? What makes the rest of humanity special? Your understanding leaves God subject to fate… It is my belief however that they were forgiven for this, because Jesus said "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. " If Jesus said it, then it must be that they were forgiven. After all, Jesus is God in the flesh, right? Here you claim God will forgive them because they were ignorant of their evil! If they were forgiven then it is only because they repented and put their trust in him. To say that ignorance, and not faith, can be a means of pardon contradicts the whole Bible. Eph 1:3-5-election is conditioned upon being in Christ. The Calvinist would have you believe you were in Christ "before the foundation of the world. " NONSENSE! If you were, you fell out of Christ into Adam, and then fell out of Adam and back into Christ! NO MAN is in Christ UNTIL he TRUSTS CHRIST(Eph 1:13). The verse says predestined ‘to be’ implying that the being made holy was after the decree. In a sense you were because it was decreed but not effectually until faith. Why is my opponent against using Ad Homonim on Servetus? By rules I had in mind something like: I did not want someone to shy from saying ‘I feel it is foolish/heretical to believe x’ or ‘belief in x is foolish/heretical’ etc. I did not have intention to allow ad hominem. As I explained before Calvin requested Serventus be beheaded for treason not heresy, and that the one who carried out the burning was a non-Calvinist. As I said before Calvinism has no pillar on or about executing heretics, such actions should be viewed in the principle of thought at the time. Sigh, when I said "He was burnt at the stake to prevent his heresy from spreading" I was not endorsing the execution, I was attempting to bring light to the principle of thought at the time. Calvin was Biblical but not infallable. Your rant of him seems to be generated by a frustration of his theology. Now, I admit, I made a mistake. I lean between the two for various reasons. I would be more accepted by Baptists but the majority of my theology is Presbyterian. Closing It is self evident to me that Acvavra holds a non-orthodox view of scripture. This is because he rejects the notion that 1) man is depraved 2) that God must do something to make man alive 3) that God is sovereign over everything. All of which are held by the three orthodox soteriological circles: Calvinism, Luthranism, Arminianism. Either Acvavra believes that man is born morally free from sin (Pelagianism), or man is born depraved but not enough to prevent them from accepting the gospel done without any operation of God in the heart. Each or which are considered heretical to all modes of orthodox soteriology. Acvara has not substantiated that man is 1) not totally depraved, 2) elected unconditionally. I leave the last word to you bud!