Eternal Security Is the Truth (Christianity)

My adversary starts his final round by mocking John Calvin and sharing with us some books that he owns. There are a few fatal flaws with this start(1) While John Calvin may have ran with the idea of Calvinism, he was not the first to adopt the idea. The concept of Calvinism goes back as far as St Augustine. Augustine taught "double predestination" or the idea and concept that God elects certain people to go to hell [1]. This is some of the earliest stages of what we now call Calvinism. (2) Listing the wrongs of a person whom discovered something, does not discredit valid evidence. If a well studied atheist discovered the process of hermeneuctics, it would not make the process any less true than if a Christian discovered it. The same line of thought is true here. While we have no right to judge Calvin for his acts (remember this was a different time period all together, and God himself along with many other people in the bible slaughtered countless others), Calvin did come up with a valid and sound theory which was verified and thought to be true by great minds such as Augustine and now which is held by amazing pastors such as Mark Driskol and John Piper. This was a waste of my adversaries first half of his final round. He accomplished nothing besides ranting at this point and also providing false information such as Calvin being the father of Calvinism. He was given the title because he took the concept and ran with it, not because he was the first to discover or give thought about the concept of it. Rebuttal My opponent plays a game of add lib, yet we see nowhere in 1 John 2:2 where it says the "whole" world refers to people scattered throughout the world, so much for my opponent using Hermeneutics !I have no idea if my adversary just chose not to read what I wrote, or just blatantly ignored it. See my previous round for the meaning of "all" in these passages. He also misunderstood the point that was made. This is using the process of Hermeneutics to the point, my adversary just failed to miss the logical process of thought in how you ascertain the meaning of the word. As we can see in Revelation 14 :9-11 Jon does not accept that all people will be saved. He clearly acknowledges people are going to go to hell. I am going to copy the previous passage, because it address this point head on and also since my adversary failed to realize this. This is a summary from an argument by Jon Piper explaining the topic at hand. "The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world. If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner." [2]Rebuttal 2The meaning of "The Church"Again my adversary missed the mark on this. We were reviewing the phrase/verse"Christ dies for his church"The argument that was presented was as follows. Premise[a] Christ died so that the church would be saved[b] If Christ died for everyone, everyone would have to be a part of the church[c] Since everyone is not a part of the church, Christ died for an electMy adversary did not even touch this point, and just quoted an irrelevant scripture to the topic at hand. He also dropped the most important verse in my prior round. Romans 8:28-30, "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his propose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." There is no way around this verse. It literally says for those that God knew would be saved, he predestined to be in the image of his son. It then even goes further to say those whom he did predestined, he also called to salvation. In ClosingMy adversary did not touch the verse in Romans where it clearly states "God predetermines people to be saved" This was dropped entirely from the debate and remains untouchedHe also drops my argument for the context in which "all " is used in Hebrew. This also remains untouched He fails to adequately address the meaning what/whom the church was referring to which I further refuted in the final round. This debate was riddle with literal meaning of the texts in the bible. My adversary is quick to jump at words that pop out in the English translations such as "all", "whole" and even "harden". When you read this with the intent and perspective of trying to find out what the author was meaning to write it is quite clear.All in most of these verses refers to a set group of people.Ending Premise[1] God ordains a set group of people to be saved[2] When God calls these people they can not refuse, or will always accept by their own choice[3] When God calls these people they are forever his and he is fully aware of this prior tot hem being called. I am going to again leave you with RomansRomans 8:28-30, "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his propose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." [1] http://www.reasons.org...[2] Desiringgod.org