Reformed Theology is a True Representation of The Gospel

To recap: Contention 1) The dangerous consequences for any Calvinistic idea of eternal security if it is wrong. Here my opponent does nothing to detract from the logical exercise of reviewing necessary consequences. He just asserts that scripture must be used in every line of argumentation. Though I disagree that logic cannot be used in dealing with a God who created logic, that does not mean we cannot know what scripture states about what God will say at the Judgement seat. Matthew 25:23 23`His lord said to him, Well done, servant, good and faithful, over a few things thou wast faithful, over many things I will set thee; enter into the joy of thy lord. And Revelation 21: 7 He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death. The clarity of scripture here shows us the consequence of teaching Holiness and service will only please God. This argument is based in logic and indeed scripture. I am sorry my opponent is so unfamiliar with the teachings of ALL infallible scriptures. I quoted a fount of scriptures in Round 1 that teach repentance that precedes the teaching of Revelation chapter 21. My opponent ignored those verses then quoted some he felt detracted from my contentions. The infallibility of scripture is not at issue, but the CLEAR fallibility of my opponent’s scriptural interpretation is at issue. - Retort 1 addressed; I quote my opponent: “Yes, a vast majority of today’s mainstream church is blind. Today’s modern church has NO emphasis on God, rather they teach self-help and goodness already in yourself. “ He cites a couple of anecdotal “bad” pastors. Though I do not necessarily agree they are bad, but they certainly do not hold to a Calvinist interptetation. Here he commits a causal fallacy again. It does not necessarily follow they are wrong to teach self-help and goodness if the scriptures teach such action is necessary. It only follows as “wrong” if my opponent can “Prove” Calvinism is correct. He has not even attempted to do so. He only attempted to prove I was incorrect. But we can see this is a non-issue. We can see clearly that Calvinistic teachers are fallible and we cannot assume they are infallible. My opponent did nothing to show his interpretation was correct. . http://www.foxnews.com... - Retort 2 addressed; To quote my opponent: “Since when does “mainstream” automatically mean what is right? ” My opponent for the second round has not understood the assertion. When you are the minority view, when you are making an assertion and when you are instigating the debate, the Burden of Proof rests upon you. You compound that by stating you, a self-convicted fallible human are infallibly interpreting the scriptures. You have to prove with beyond a reasonable doubt that your position is resolved as true. The Mainstream Christians, who all hold to the infallibility of scripture and assert a proper natural reading as a superior process of interpretation, to the neglect and denial of a Calvinist interpretation include: 5 Patriarchs, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Methodists, Salvation Army. The non-mainstream but ‘mainline’ protestant denominations who all hold to the infallibility of scripture and assert a proper natural reading as a superior process of interpretation, to the neglect and denial of a Calvinist interpretation include: Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anabaptists and even Quakers. These denominations are not “inherently right” in their interpretation but my opponent needed to assert a positive argument to show they are not accurate. Even if he proves I am wrong he by no means proves the resolution to be true. - retort 3 Good News: I quote my opponent: “You’re a sinner. God still loves you. God calls you from your path of destruction and makes a better way for you, gives you a new heart and makes you want to be like him. Sounds like Good News to me. ” Except that for at least some, at worst most, no such Good News is in view, in your view. To be a Calvinist, one must also ignore infallible scripture as John’s declaration here: 1 John Chapter 2: 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an [a]Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the [b]propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. In reality, Calvinism is a Good News/Bad News situation that attempts to abrogate the scriptures, like John’s epistle, based upon a framework of interpretation that contorts and confuses the students of Calvinism. -“ He is God. He knows what is good and what is just, my opponent does not. ” My opponent rants for several paragraphs about God having a plan and who am I to question it? Who am I to question whether God is just or not. But this is a moot point because God does not elect people in the manner that Calvinists suggest. God does have a just system of election, He predestined Nations not individuals. Romans Chp 9-11 Contention 2) Scripture should be interpreted in light of God’s Justice rather than merely His Sovereignty Here my opponent does not respond to the numbers of scriptures I posted in Round 1. He continues to yell for scriptures but just outright ignores the scriptures that call for an action of repentance from the Believer. He seems to read John 3:16, make a denial of the following context. I point the correct context to him in round 2 and he tacitly concedes he was wrong. He still completely ignored the infallible repentance verses that followed. I am baffled as to the reason there was no response to these scriptures and actually the opposite of a call from my opponent wanting scriptures from me. - We see that it is affirmed that God’s Justice is the predominant Divine trait and the natural reading of God’s Infallible scriptures. God’s sovereignty is not ‘equal’ to his Justice but that the scriptures through repentance teach that God’s sovereignty does not overrule a Just way of dealing with us. Contention 3). The superiority of Scriptural Scholarship. I have no idea how my opponent can be so largely unaware of that every other denomination is synergistic. The idea that somehow it is NOT obvious that more Greek scholarship is arrayed against a monergistic view is a ‘head in the sand’ refutation attempt. The question is ‘how does my opponent not know that the consensus of the world’s Greek Scholarship is against the reformed tradition’s view”? . http://en.wikipedia.org...Summary: We see I have offered to refute the resolution 3 powerful arguments that with stood all poor attempts of refutation from my opponent. C1) We saw that indeed Logic supports a synergistic interpretation of scripture C2) The scriptures through John 3:16 teach Belief followed by action on the believers part by stepping into the ‘light’ of the Truth. I also gave 6 additional verses that show repentence is required of the Believer. John 3:16 shows God desires action on our Part: Proverbs 1:23; Isaiah 30:15; Ezekiel 14:6; Mark 6:12; Luke 3:8 all teach that God must have the action of repentance. Scriptures affirm a synergistic approach. C3) Indeed monergism cannot muster the support of consensus of the majority of Greek Scholars. Few indeed, only the reformed tradition assert any sort of monergistic view of scripture. We can certainly conclude that the Resolution is false.