Reformed Theology is a True Representation of The Gospel

I was uncertain that we would have a completed debate. I was hoping for a positive argument to meet the Burden of Proof. My opponent must give a positive argument for the resolution next round, as it is his last chance to hope to make any positive assertion for the resolution. Contention 1) The dangerous consequences for any Calvinistic idea of eternal security if it is wrong. I again reaffirm that the reformed viewpoint cannot adequately represent the Gospel if it inherently denies its very repercussions of the major aspect of the Gospel of eternal salvation into God’s heavenly Kingdom. Here my opponent asks about how I can speak for God and other ‘offbase’ responses. This concept is a logical exercise in reviewing necessary consequences. Succinctly restated “what is the logical consequence of either viewpoint if that viewpoint is wrong. ” It is affirmed that the consequences of believing and teaching Holiness or obedience unto salvation offer far more security for believers than any limited or negligent form of salvation. If God gives a call to action on your part to respond to the Gospel and you do not… you do not get into heaven… On the other side if there is No call to obedience and yet you obey, you suffer no loss and still get into heaven. - My opponent argues Freewill does not exist in the Bible! But choices made under constraints is. I will avoid the great semantic “what is freewill” debate, instead I will point out three things. First, does my opponent really suggest, as the Jehovah’s Witness do with the word Trinity, that such a concept needs to be the exact word in the Bible? Does my opponent validate the JW’s approach to Biblical concepts? Second, does my opponent believe that the vast majority of Spirit led and filled mainstream Christians just read what they want into the Bible and that Calvinists have the truth? Third, most people recognize freewill being defined as the ability to make choices while being constrained to a human body and earth. - I would holistically respond to my opponents rant by myself clearly statting “that Gospel is only possible if Freewill exists. ” I have clearly laid out many scriptures proving just that. All my opponent did was cite predestination verses in response. I will address with the following. - My opponent also spends a lot of time by citing scriptures taken out of context as we all recognize that predestination exists within a framework of Nations, the Church, gender, birth into a family, and birth into a century…. I don’t know of any Christian theological framework besides Calvinism that does not acknowledge that it is in these ways that we are predestined. I find it an act of contortion to take scriptures of single details of God’s plan out of context and make them mean something entirely different, to the point of even creating a ‘new’ theological framework. I fail to see how this would adequately refute my first logical consequence argument much less how it could possibly represent Good News to the entire world. Imagine if I witnessed two people jump from a cliff both by their choice, and decided to arbitrarily just save one from the ‘hard stop’ at the bottom, when indeed I could have saved both. When asked why, I merely state, I am sovereign! Would not the question be asked “Ok…. your sovereign over these two peoples circumstances, but did you behave in a ‘Just’ manner? ” Imagine if I ran around ranting: “Good news! You will be a bloody spot at the end of this. Sure I could save you like this other guy, but instead I chose to only save him and allowed you to suffer the consequences of your choice! Good News! ” In context of the Bible: Do you really think people would run around proclaiming “Good news everyone! God is unjust! ” I think the ideas conveyed by my opponent leave much to be desired. - The very important part suggested by my opponent: My opponent suggests that if we have a freewill choice for or against God we had no need for a savior. This is a causal fallacy. It does not necessarily follow that a person who does not have "freewill" is the ONLY person who needs a savior. To make such a suggestion completely ignores the plethora of other scenarios whereby a person who would willing make a choice for salvation yet be unable or powerless to exercise that choice. I will give just one for sake of characters: A slave who would love to be free despite the clear chains and guards that prevent such an action of the slave who has freewill but is contrained. That is in fact the position held by theological synergists. We are slaves to the devil/world system and unable to be freed until the price is paid by our Kinsman Redeemer (it is why God became a man btw). Contention 2) Scripture should be interpreted in light of God’s Justice rather than merely His Sovereignty My opponent here denies the pivotal verse cited by every Christian the world over. He states that: “Since my opponent is very keen on original Greek context this should come to no surprise to him, this verse does state “whoever will believe” but does not go in detail as to HOW they will believe or where this belief comes about. ” Despite my opponent’s decidedly errant view of the context we see affirmed within this verse that belief comes about through obedient action of the believer. The Believer must “step into the light”. To not do so is to choose to remain in darkness and choose against God’s saving light. This one verse does indeed leave little doubt of the errant nature of the reformed view when all other verses are understood to speak only of predestination of people inside of nations, circumstances of their birth such as gender and parent’s. - But to be fair I posted many verses that spoke of the action of repentance from evil called for throughout the Bible. Point 2 is affirmed in that many scriptures have a call to obedience necessary and part of the Gospel. - concerning God’s Justice vs. Soverignty. I pointed out under point 1 that God’s sovereignty must check his Justice first. They cannot be considered coequal after reading the Bible. Imagine if people ran around saying God is “in charge Just! ” It is nonsensical. God’s sovereignty flows through his Justice. A sovereign action will always be deemed as just or unjust. Contention 3). The superiority of Scriptural Scholarship. My opponent seems to not have addressed this point. The vast majority of 'Greek' scholars would not support a reformed reading of the bible but by clear consensus conclude a synergistic Gospel. Summary, My opponent has offered NO positive case for the resolution. C1) We see little cause for concern if we are obedient to the call of Holiness and teach such a call, while the converse does cause us concern if we teach a blind trust in an errant theology for our salvation. C2) Contention 2 we see that scriptures indeed show that God is just and that the Gospel is the Good News that God is Just. C3) we see also that the consensus of scholarship clearly holds that the Greek supports a synergistic Gospel. Considering all of these points and that my opponent has offered no supported argument for the Burden of Pro’s stance of the resolution. We must affirm that the resolution is indeed false.