Calvinism

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. -John 6:35 Pro stated: “My opponent uses Matthew 7:21 to prove Romans 10:13 is conditional, but that is not a good verse to use. First off, the people in Matthew 7:21 were trusting in their works, not Christ alone.” Conclusive Rebuttal: I’m not sure what my opponent’s objection is designed to establish. He is absolutely correct in his understanding of Matthew 7:21. The people in that verse did not trust in Christ, yet still called out to the Lord. Therefor my opponent agrees; not everyone who cries out to God is saved, which means Romans 10:13 is indeed conditional. No contest. _______________________ Pro said: A spiritual man thats "dead in trespasses and sins" can still choose to do good or evil. Conclusive Rebuttal: No they cannot. You speak of relative morality. We are not speaking of good deeds between men, we’re speaking of good deeds between men and God. God does not find a single shred of good in you: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. –Romans 3:10-12 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.-Ecclesiastes 7:20 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. – Isaiah 64:6 A spiritual man that’s dead in trespasses and sin cannot choose to do good, by any measure. To claim otherwise is outright heresy. When Jesus made reference to sinners treating each other good, it was concerning a relative morality. We are not discussing what men consider good. Calvin’s doctrine is concerned with what merits righteousness (God’s standard). Jesus said:” Only God is good.” My Argument is sustained with extreme prejudice. _______________________ Pro said: “I do believe God allows sin. But there is a vast difference between forcing someone to sin, and just allowing it to happen. Your claiming God forced Adam to sin.” Conclusive rebuttal: I never said God forced Adam to sin. I said Adam does not have free will. “The issue is not that we have sinned, the issue is: We’ve never done anything but sin.” – Paul Washer Pro’s Argument is negated. _______________________ Pro said: “Concerning Pharaoh, God did not harden his heart until AFTER he rejected God's words in Exodus 5:1-9. I believe a fellow can sin so much, …” Conclusive Rebuttal: I’m not concerned with what you believe. I’m concerned with what scripture states. Scripture states that God raised Pharaoh up to be destroyed. You can dance around the verse all you want. In fact, you may have a very elegant and well-composed argument but if it’s not supported by scripture, it’s sophisticated garbage. Stick to scripture, not opinions. Pro’s Argument is negated. ______________ Pro said: Now concerning Adam's test, my opponent claims God doesn't test us. Really? Conclusive statement: Again you put words in my mouth. I did not say that God doesn’t test us, I said the Apple was not a test. I also said that God doesn’t experiment because that suggests he does not know the answer. When God sent the Angel to test Abraham, it was not because he didn’t know how faithful Abraham would be. He tested Abraham to inform you of Abraham’s faith. You’re the one with limited understanding and knowledge, not God. Argument negated. ________________ Pro stated: My opponent is wrong. ALL MEANS ALL. That is the root of the problem with Calvinism. When the Bible clearly says "all" the Calvinist always has to INTERPRET what that means. I trust in what it SAYS, not how I interpret it. Rebuttal: This is a borderline ad hominem. I’m not going to discuss your personal dislikes of Calvinism or your character attacks on my ability to reason. Stick to the scripture. Argument negated. ________________ Pro claims: Further John 12:32 states how he will "draw all men unto himself." It says, "And I, IF I BE LIFTED UP, will draw all men unto me." As long as Christ is lifted up, no one will go to Hell. But Christ has not been lifted up everywhere, so people still go to Hell. Again, the people in Matthew 7:21 never trusted Christ when He was lifted up, they trusted their works. Rebuttal: Out of context. The verse states “32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” This has nothing to do with men “lifting up Christ and confessing him”. This verse is about the resurrection. You conveniently left out the location from where he would be raised, so that you could make it sound “universal”. Heresy! Argument negated. ____________ Pro said: 1 John 2:2 does say,"the whole world." How do you interpret that to mean something else? I take the Bible by what it says, not what someone interprets it to mean. Rebuttal: I already addressed 1 John 2:2 in round 2. By “the whole world”, he meant all nations, both Jews and Greeks. Again, this speaks to the type of people Jesus will save. The stereotype has been that the Jews are elect and the Greeks are dogs. 1 John 2:2 is a stumbling block for the Jews and fulfills the prophecy that the Gentiles can hope in the Christ also. This is getting redundant. Argument negated. ________________ Pro said: “..But I don't remember any saved person IN THE BIBLE Killing someone over doctrine. “ Rebuttal: Right, because murder is the worst possible sin. (Not) I clearly recall one of the early apostles denying Christ before men, and not just once. What about Peter taking the sword to the Roman soldier and dismembering his ear? If Peter was ready to kill to protect his Lord, why would you hold him to a higher standard than Calvin? The only difference between the two is that Christ was present with Peter and prevented him from actually killing the guy. The early apostles where no different than the puritan witch hunters in Salem. They loved Christ but more often than not they clung on to their culture, not their faith. Calvin was no different and for the record, nobody is advocating that the man is a saint. He had an awful temper and I probably would not get along with the guy, but he understood the scripture with a clarity that has since been unmatched and there was not a single fiber in his being that sought to create a “cult” worship of a false doctrine. Argument negated. ___________ Pro stated: Further saved people don't sin unless their backslidden, and its strange seeing a SAVED person get backslidden over hearing the "false doctrine of Servetus." How do you get backslidden by just hearing different doctrine THAT CALVIN DISAGREED WITH ALREADY! Tell me how that's possible Con. Rebuttal: Do you have any scripture to prove that this is not possible? What kind of objection is this? Are you making an appeal to psychology? Allow me to reply:” How can you NOT backslide into rage after being saturated in something that you loathe?” I can confess my own iniquity. Quite often, when faced with the prosperity gospel, I find myself deeply, deeply angered. Their doctrine is so offensive to my heart that it is better for me to walk away, than it would be to engage. Your question suggests that Calvin should have been a robot, cold and emotionless. Argument negated. _____________ Conclusion: Pro attempted to discredit the doctrines of Grace and was met with sound scriptural opposition. At no point in this debate did my opponent establish a cause or reason for the voter to assume that Calvin is a cult leader or that Calvinism is a cult religion. I therefor strongly urge a vote for Con. http://www.youtube.com...