Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6212
Calvinism is Biblical
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
sonicjustin95
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
This debate will evaluate whether the theological system known as Calvinism is biblically supported. Calvinism, often summarized by the acronym TULIP, includes five core doctrines: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. These doctrines affirm God's absolute sovereignty in salvation, man's inability to choose God apart from grace, and the effectual nature of Christ's atoning work for the elect.
The Pro side will argue that Calvinism faithfully represents the teachings of Scripture concerning human nature, divine sovereignty, salvation, and grace. The Con side will argue that Calvinism either misrepresents or goes beyond what the Bible teaches, and that alternative interpretations (e.g., Arminianism, Molinism, or other soteriologies) align more closely with Scripture.
Definitions:
Calvinism: The Reformed theological system centered on God’s sovereign election and the doctrines of grace, particularly as articulated in the five points of Calvinism.
Biblical: Derived from or supported by the proper interpretation of the Bible.
Burden of Proof:
The burden is shared. Pro must demonstrate that the key doctrines of Calvinism are clearly taught in Scripture. Con must demonstrate that these doctrines are either not supported by Scripture or are contradicted by it.
Debate Structure (suggested):
Round 1: Opening arguments (no rebuttals).
Round 2: Rebuttals and defense.
Round 3: Further rebuttals and analysis.
Round 4: Final rebuttals and closing arguments (no new arguments).
Rules:
Arguments must be grounded in Scripture. Appeals to church history, logic, or tradition are welcome but should not replace biblical support.
No forfeits. No trolling or semantics.
Citations of Scripture should include chapter and verse for verification.
This is a theological debate with eternal significance. Both sides are encouraged to engage respectfully, thoughtfully, and with a sincere commitment to truth.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Opening Argument: Calvinism Is Biblically Supported
Calvinism is not a man-made system forced onto Scripture. It is a faithful summary of what the Bible teaches about God’s sovereignty, human sin, and the nature of salvation. The five points of Calvinism, often called TULIP, are not isolated ideas. They form a coherent, biblical explanation of how God saves sinners and how He receives all the glory for doing so.
This argument will present each point with clear premises and a conclusion, all drawn from Scripture.
I. Total Depravity
Definition: Because of the fall, every part of human nature is corrupted by sin. People are spiritually dead and morally unable to come to God without divine intervention.
Premises:
- All people are born in sin (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12).
- No one naturally seeks God or does good (Romans 3:10–12).
- The natural human condition is spiritual death (Ephesians 2:1–3).
- Spiritual death means inability, not just unwillingness (John 6:44, where "no one can come" indicates a lack of ability).
Conclusion: Therefore, no one is able to come to God by their own will or power. Salvation must begin with God’s initiative.
II. Unconditional Election
Definition: God chooses whom He will save based on His own will and grace, not on anything foreseen in the person.
Premises:
- God chose individuals for salvation before the world began (Ephesians 1:4–5).
- His choice was not based on works or future decisions (Romans 9:11–13).
- Election is rooted in God's purpose and mercy, not human will (Romans 9:16, 18).
- Jesus told His disciples that they did not choose Him, but He chose them (John 15:16).
Conclusion: Therefore, election is based on God’s sovereign will alone, not on human effort or foreseen faith.
III. Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)
Definition: Christ’s death secured actual salvation for a specific people. It was sufficient for all but intended to effectively save the elect.
Premises:
- Jesus came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
- He laid down His life specifically for His sheep (John 10:14–15).
- He gave Himself for the Church, not indiscriminately for all (Ephesians 5:25).
- If Christ died for all in the same way, all would be saved. Yet Scripture teaches that some will face judgment, which means Christ's death must have a particular intention.
Conclusion: Therefore, Christ’s atonement was designed to actually and effectively save the elect, not merely make salvation a possibility.
IV. Irresistible Grace
Definition: When God calls someone inwardly by the Holy Spirit, that call results in a willing response. God changes the heart so that the person desires Christ.
Premises:
- All whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him (John 6:37).
- No one can come unless the Father draws them (John 6:44).
- Those whom God calls are also justified (Romans 8:30), which means the call is effectual.
- God opened Lydia’s heart to respond to Paul’s preaching (Acts 16:14), which shows that saving grace acts directly on the heart.
Conclusion: Therefore, God’s saving call cannot fail. When He draws someone, they come to faith because their heart has been changed.
V. Perseverance of the Saints
Definition: All true believers will remain in the faith until the end, not because of their own strength but because God keeps them.
Premises:
- Those who are justified will be glorified. No one falls out along the way (Romans 8:30).
- Jesus said He will lose none of those the Father has given Him (John 6:39).
- No one can snatch believers out of God’s hand (John 10:28–29).
- Those who fall away were never truly born again (1 John 2:19).
Conclusion: Therefore, all true believers will persevere because God sustains them. Salvation is secure because it is God’s work from beginning to end.
Con
#2
I've never used this thing before, and I'm already having problems. Ion wanna read essays :(
Anyway, if you’re Protestant, you likely follow Sola Scriptura, which is basically the belief that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for faith and practice. That brings up a seropis question:
Which Bible are you following?
Are you following:
- Martin Luther’s version, which removed 7 books from the Old Testament canon?
- Or the historic Christian Bible, which included those books until the 1500s and was officially recognized in the 4th century?
If you follow Luther’s Bible, you have a problem, and not just a historical one. Revelation 22:18–19 warns against adding to or taking away from the words of Scripture. So it's either:
- Martin Luther had the authority to change the canon (which would place him above Church Fathers and councils),
- Or he didn’t — and in that case, following his edited canon would be unbiblical and damning.
Even Luther himself said of the Apocrypha:
“These are books that are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures, and yet are useful and good to read.”
So even by Luther’s own words, the Apocrypha has value.
Let’s take a look at Sirach 15:11–20, a passage that was part of the canon for over 1,500 years before he decided to remove it:
Sirach 15:11–20 — Freedom of Choice
11 Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”; for he will not do what he hates.
12 Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he has no need of a sinful man.
13 The Lord hates all abominations, and they are not loved by those who fear him.
14 It was he who created man in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination.
15 If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
16 He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish.
17 Before a man are life and death, and whichever he chooses will be given to him.
18 For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything.
19 His eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of man.
20 He has not commanded anyone to be ungodly, and he has not given anyone permission to sin.
This is a pretty clear showcase of free will, personal responsibility, and choice. If this passage was canon for over a millennium, and even Martin Luther considered it “good and useful to read,” how can Calvinism — with its doctrine of predestination and total depravity — stand? It can't!
In short:
- If Luther was wrong to remove this book, you ought accept its authority.
- If Luther was right, then you must still deal with the implications of what was left in — namely, this passage.
Either way, Sirach 15:11–20 is a major challenge to your theology. It affirms that God gave us a real choice — and that the blame for sin lies not with Him, but with us.
Round 2
Pro
#3
You are free to forfeit this debate if you cannot engage with a few paragraphs of biblical argumentation. I am only continuing because you publicly accused me of “fleeing” after I faithfully and biblically responded to your objections. If you are unwilling to read or respond seriously, that speaks for itself.
Before My Response:
Rule Violations:
In addition to its theological weakness, your post violated several debate rules:
- Arguments must be grounded in Scripture.You relied on Sirach, which is not recognized as Scripture under Sola Scriptura. You did not cite any canonical Scripture to support your argument against Calvinism.
- No trolling or semantics.Opening with “Ion wanna read essays :(” was dismissive and unserious, which is not appropriate in a formal, Bible-based debate.
- Scripture should be cited with chapter and verse.Only Revelation 22:18–19 and Sirach 15 were quoted. You did not use any verses from the 66-book Protestant canon to support your claims.
- Round 1 was for opening arguments only.Your post was a rebuttal, not an opening argument. You skipped the agreed structure and went straight into attacking my position, which was not permitted in this round.
My Response:
I. Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Depend on Luther’s Canon
Protestants do not follow Luther’s Bible. They follow the canon affirmed by the early church based on apostolic use and divine inspiration.
The 39 books of the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible reflect the same content as the Hebrew Scriptures affirmed by Jesus and the apostles. The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha as Scripture.
Josephus (around AD 90), a Jewish historian, confirms that the Hebrew Scriptures used by the Jewish people ended with the same books found in the Protestant Old Testament.
Jewish discussions around AD 90 recognized the same books, which aligns with what Jesus referred to as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings” (Luke 24:44).
Paul affirms the Jewish canon in Romans 3:1–2, where he writes that the Jews were entrusted with the “oracles of God.” He does not reference the Apocrypha.
II. The Apocrypha Was Never Accepted as Canon by Jesus or the Apostles
Sirach was part of Jewish religious literature, but the Jewish people did not regard it as Scripture. It was read for wisdom, not for doctrine.
The earliest Christian manuscripts, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, included the Apocrypha, but not as part of the canon. The church treated them as useful but not inspired.
The Council of Trent (1546) was the first time the Roman Catholic Church officially defined the Apocrypha as canonical, and this was done in response to the Reformation.
“These are books that are not held equal to the Holy Scriptures…” - Martin Luther.
This quote proves Luther did not remove Scripture. He followed the pattern of Jerome and others who distinguished between inspired Scripture and valuable but non-canonical writings.
III. Revelation 22:18–19 Doesn’t Apply to the Canon
That passage refers specifically to the Book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. Applying it to canon formation is historically inaccurate.
If your position is that the canon was closed in the fourth century, then consider this:
- Why did Rome wait until the 1500s to formally define the Apocrypha as canon?
- Why did early church fathers disagree on it? Athanasius rejected it. Jerome rejected it. Origen distinguished it.
The charge that Protestants removed Scripture does not stand up to historical scrutiny.
IV. Sirach 15 Doesn’t Refute Calvinism
- It is not Scripture, so it is not a valid refutation of a biblical doctrine.
Sola Scriptura means that doctrine must be built on inspired Scripture. Sirach may have historical or devotional value, but it carries no authority. - Even if it were canonical, it would not contradict Calvinism.
Calvinists affirm human responsibility. The Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and moral accountability (see Acts 2:23, Genesis 50:20, Philippians 2:12–13).
Sirach 15 emphasizes that people sin willingly, not by force. Calvinism agrees. The doctrine of Total Depravity does not teach that people are forced to sin, but that they sin freely according to their nature.
“He left him in the power of his own inclination” does not teach libertarian free will. It reflects the reality described in Romans 1 and John 3:19:
“People loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”
Calvinism does not teach that God makes people sin. It teaches that He permits sin and ordains all things for His glory, while never being the author of evil.
V. The Real Issue: What Does Scripture Teach?
Let’s compare:
- Sirach (non-canonical): Says man chooses life or death.
- John 6:44 (canonical): “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
- Romans 3:11: “No one seeks God.”
- Ephesians 2:1: “You were dead in trespasses and sins.”
Even if Sirach were true, it would still need to be interpreted in light of inspired Scripture, not used to overturn it.
Conclusion:
The Protestant canon is grounded in what Jesus, the apostles, and the early church recognized as Scripture. The Apocrypha is not part of that foundation, and even if Sirach were taken seriously, it does not contradict Calvinism when understood rightly.
Biblical doctrine must be judged by the Word of God, not by later additions, church councils, or emotional arguments.
And in any serious debate, the structure and rules should be respected by all participants. I followed the format. You did not. I now await your biblical case, if you are prepared to make one.
Con
#4
Firstly, Rule Violations.
1. Sirach is scripture, and was part of scripture until Martin Luther removed it.
2. K
3. I understand that you believe that Sirach isn't scripture, but Revelations too?
4. So what do I argue? That Calvinism is false? That's what I was doing!
As for your response, I don't know if I should argue that or your first thing. I'll start with your reply.
1. Wrong. There are multiple reasons why. Firstly, if they weren't already used, Luther wouldn't have removed it. Secondly, so what? That's an arguement from Silence. Was Ruth mentioned in the NT? Further more, by your logic, Enoch is scripture as it was quoted by Jude. Thirdly, are you really trusting Josephus and those early Jews for your scripture? The same Josepheus who mocked Jesus, and Jews (I don't mean Jewish Christians) that persecuted the early church? The early Church used the Septuagint, which includes the Aprochya. Don't just take my word for it, check yourself!
2. Another arguement from silence. Also heres some quotes!
Origen (c. 184–253 AD)
- Book Referenced: Additions to Daniel (Susanna, Bel and the Dragon)
- Quote (Letter to Africanus):
"The story of Susanna... ought to be included in the number of the sacred Scriptures..."
St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)
- Books Referenced: All the Deuterocanonical Books
- Quote (On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Ch. 8):
"The whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in these books:... Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch..."
- Explicitly lists these books as part of the canon.
There are many more, and i'm pretty sure you're pulling this stuff from no where. It took me 2 seconds to find people who considered the Aprochya as canon.
3. No they didn't. It was part of the canon since 400s. The only reason they explicitly had to say it was because of ML. Why did they disagree on the canon? I don't see the argument here. Are you saying that disagreement = false? The early church had a lot of debate with Arianism. Does that make Arianism true? And uh, sure man.
4. Wrong. Do research for more than 2 seconds and you'll see it was part of the biblical cannon until ML.
"Calvinism does not teach that God makes people sin. It teaches that He permits sin and ordains all things for His glory, while never being the author of evil."
Ordain
- order or decree (something) officially:"equal punishment was ordained for the two crimes"
- (especially of God or fate) prescribe; determine (something):"the path ordained by God"
Predetermined
- established or decided in advance:"a predetermined level of spending"
- (of an outcome or course of events) determined in advance by divine will or fate; predestined:"I had come to believe life was random chaos, not a predetermined path"
If God predetermined our actions, he is the reason we sin. We cannot have free will and also be controlled by God.
5. My brother in Christ, this just shows that men can pick and choose, even if it is evil; this is just killing the idea of predestinaton.
6. No it is not.
"Biblical doctrine must be judged by the Word of God, not by later additions, church councils (?), or emotional arguments."
The irony is insane! Also, we get most of our believes from church councils. If you reject church councils you are already lost. These include things like: The Nicene Creed, Doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, Responses to Heresies (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism), Church Discipline & Structure (like when we celebrate easter), and our Canon of Scripture.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Full Rebuttal to Your Response
Opening Accusations & Rule Violations
“Firstly, Rule Violations. 1. Sirach is scripture, and was part of scripture until Martin Luther removed it.”
Correction:
Sirach was never part of the Hebrew canon Jesus and the apostles affirmed. Martin Luther did not “remove” anything. He followed the precedent of Jerome, who translated the Latin Bible and said the Apocrypha should be read for edification, not doctrine.
“2. K”
This is not a serious or meaningful engagement.
“3. I understand that you believe that Sirach isn't scripture, but Revelations too?”
Correction:
This is a false accusation. I have never denied Revelation is Scripture. I said Revelation 22:18–19 refers to the Book of Revelation itself, not the entire Bible or the canon formation process. The phrase “this book” appears three times, clearly meaning the book John was writing. When John wrote that warning, the biblical canon had not yet been closed. So applying that verse to Martin Luther’s rejection of the Apocrypha is anachronistic. I affirm the full 66-book Protestant canon, including Revelation. Your accusation is baseless.
“4. So what do I argue? That Calvinism is false? That's what I was doing!”
Correction:
No, you were rebutting my argument instead of presenting your own opening case. The rules clearly stated that Round 1 was for opening arguments only, not rebuttals. You skipped the format and launched into responses. That’s a structural violation, not a content critique.
Doctrinal and Historical Claims
“1. Wrong. There are multiple reasons why. Firstly, if they weren't already used, Luther wouldn't have removed it.”
Correction:
Luther didn’t remove anything. He placed the Apocrypha in a separate section of his Bible, as “books not equal to the Holy Scriptures.” He followed the canon of the Hebrew Bible, which excluded the Apocrypha, just like Jesus, the apostles, and Paul (Romans 3:2) affirmed.
“So what? That's an argument from silence. Was Ruth mentioned in the NT?”
Correction:
Ruth is part of the recognized Jewish canon, which Jesus referred to as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings” (Luke 24:44). Books like Ruth, though not quoted directly, are part of the structure Jesus affirmed. The Apocrypha is not.
“Further more, by your logic, Enoch is scripture as it was quoted by Jude.”
Correction:
Quoting a book does not make it Scripture. Paul quoted pagan poets (Acts 17:28); Jude quoted 1 Enoch. Neither are canonized. The authors affirmed true statements, not the entire books as inspired Scripture.
“Are you really trusting Josephus… who mocked Jesus…?”
Correction:
Josephus is used as a historical witness, not a theological authority. He confirms the boundaries of the Jewish canon, which Jesus and the apostles affirmed. And Paul (Romans 3:2) affirms the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. That’s canon evidence, not spiritual alignment.
“The early Church used the Septuagint, which includes the Aprochya.”
Correction:
The early church used the Septuagint for Greek-speaking converts, but not all books in the Septuagint were treated as canon. Many fathers distinguished between canonical and useful books. Usage ≠ inspired authority.
“2. Another argument from silence. Also here’s some quotes!”
Origen
“The story of Susanna... ought to be included in the number of the sacred Scriptures...”
Context omitted:
Origen also wrote: “It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two.” (Homilies on Joshua 1.1)
He affirms the Hebrew canon, matching the Protestant OT, and distinguishes other books as non-canonical but useful.
Augustine
“The whole canon... Tobit, Judith, Wisdom…”
Yes, Augustine supported the Apocrypha, but:
- He also believed the Septuagint was inspired, which few today affirm.
- He was part of a long-standing Western debate. Others, like Jerome, disagreed strongly.
- You did not mention Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Jerome, who explicitly rejected the Apocrypha as canon.
This proves the church was not unified on the canon for centuries. That is not an “argument from silence” it is a well-documented, historical fact.
“I'm pretty sure you're pulling this stuff from nowhere.”
No, I’m pulling it from early church documents, church fathers, and historical councils. You’re quoting selectively. I’m giving the full picture.
“3. No they didn’t. It was part of the canon since 400s…”
Correction:
The Apocrypha was debated well into the Middle Ages. The Council of Trent (1546) officially defined it in response to the Reformation, proving that even Rome did not consider it infallibly settled beforehand.
“Why did they disagree on the canon? I don't see the argument here.”
If the canon is not universally agreed upon, it is not binding. Protestants return to the Jewish canon affirmed by Christ.
“Does disagreement = false? The early church had a lot of debate with Arianism.”
No, but Scripture is clear on Christ’s divinity. It is not clear that the Apocrypha is inspired. That’s the difference.
“4. Wrong. Do research for more than 2 seconds and you'll see it was part of the biblical canon until ML.”
Correction:
False. The Apocrypha was not part of the Hebrew canon. Luther did not remove anything. The Reformation clarified canon boundaries based on apostolic use and Hebrew authority. Rome reacted by defining it, not the other way around.
Misunderstanding of Calvinism
“If God predetermined our actions, He is the reason we sin… We cannot have free will and also be controlled by God.”
Correction:
That is a false dichotomy. Scripture affirms both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
- Acts 2:23: “This Jesus… you crucified and killed… according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.”
- Genesis 50:20: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.”
God ordains all things, but He is not the author of sin. Calvinism affirms that people sin freely according to their nature, not by coercion.
“Ordain means to order or decree... so if it's predetermined, God made it happen.”
Correction:
Ordain means to sovereignly determine. That does not mean cause in the moral sense. The Bible says:
- Ephesians 1:11: “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”
- Proverbs 16:4: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”
“5. This just shows men can pick and choose… this kills predestination.”
Correction:
It actually supports Total Depravity. People choose what they want, and they want sin, not God (Romans 3:11; John 3:19). Predestination doesn’t kill choice, it rescues us from enslaved wills and gives us hearts that want Christ.
“6. No it is not.”
(In response to [I think]: "Biblical doctrine must be judged by Scripture, not councils.")
Correction:
That is exactly what Scripture teaches.
Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God… that the man of God may be complete.”
Councils are fallible, and only carry weight when they agree with Scripture. Protestants affirm many councils (like Nicaea) because they are biblically grounded, not because they are self-authorizing.
Response to Claim About Church Councils
You wrote:
“The irony is insane! Also, we get most of our beliefs from church councils. If you reject church councils you are already lost…”
Let me be absolutely clear: I do not reject all church councils. What I reject is the idea that councils, especially later ones like Trent, have inherent, infallible authority to define doctrine apart from or over Scripture. There is no irony in saying that biblical doctrine must be judged by the Word of God. That is exactly what the early church did.
1. Councils Only Have Authority When They Align with Scripture
The early councils (like Nicaea and Chalcedon) are valued not because they “declared truth into existence,” but because they rightly interpreted and upheld what was already taught in Scripture.
For example:
- The Trinity is not true because Nicaea said so. It is true because Scripture reveals one God in three persons (Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, Acts 5:3–4).
- The full deity and humanity of Christ was upheld at Chalcedon, but it was already clear in John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, and Hebrews 1:3.
Biblical Christians affirm those doctrines because the Bible teaches them, not because a council made them up.
2. The Councils Also Disagreed, Which Ones Do You Accept?
You’re appealing to councils as if they were always unified and correct. But history shows:
- The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned Nestorius.
- The Council of Chalcedon (451) condemned Monophysitism.
- The Second Council of Nicaea (787) upheld the veneration of icons, which Protestants and many Eastern churches reject.
- The Council of Trent (1546) declared the Apocrypha to be Scripture, over the objections of early fathers like Jerome, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem.
If councils are infallible, then which councils do you accept? What do you do when they contradict?
Protestants affirm what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11:
“They received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
Even the teaching of the apostles was tested by Scripture, not by consensus or institutional decree.
3. The Bible Defines the Church, Not the Other Way Around
You said:
“If you reject church councils, you are already lost.”
That is the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
- 2 Timothy 3:16–17: “All Scripture is breathed out by God… that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
- Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
- Matthew 15:9: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), and that foundation is preserved for us in Scripture, not in councils that came later and sometimes contradicted each other.
Con
#6
Rule violations
1. "Sirach was never part of the Hebrew canon Jesus and the apostles affirmed. Martin Luther did not “remove” anything. He followed the precedent of Jerome, who translated the Latin Bible and said the Apocrypha should be read for edification, not doctrine."
Jerome doesn't have the same amount of authority as multiple other bishops. If you're going to cite Jerome, I'll cite St. Augustine.
2. Stop complaining about every small detail. It isn't that serious.
3. "This is a false accusation. I have never denied Revelation is Scripture."
"Only Revelation 22:18–19 and Sirach 15 were quoted. You did not use any verses from the 66-book Protestant canon to support your claims."
4. False, if this is true, what would I have started with?
Stuff
1. "Luther didn’t remove anything. He placed the Apocrypha in a separate section of his Bible, as “books not equal to the Holy Scriptures.” He followed the canon of the Hebrew Bible, which excluded the Apocrypha, just like Jesus, the apostles, and Paul (Romans 3:2) affirmed."
What? Did the arguement fly over your head (I pray this doesn't sound rude, i'm sorry if it does). If the books weren't being used as you claim, all Apostolic churches wouldn't have them. It's basic logic. Furthermore, he contradicted multiple church councils such as: Council of Rome (382 AD), Council of Hippo (393 AD), Council of Carthage (397 AD), and the Council of Carthage (419 AD). Unless you genuinely believe that this ONE man somehow has more authority than multiple bishops, who had the teachings passed down for centuries! This Martin Luther better be above the entire church!
"Ruth is part of the recognized Jewish canon, which Jesus referred to as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings”
Do you really think that Ruth fits that category?
"Books like Ruth, though not quoted directly, are part of the structure Jesus affirmed."
Oh, so you're backing off now. Why did you bring that up in the first place?
Furthermore, the Aprochya ARE found in the New Testament.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Let us examine him with insult and torture... for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him.” (Wisdom 2:12–20), which is a prophecy of:
“He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” (Matthew 27:41–43)
“Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:44–46), which is related to:
“May the Lord grant him (Onesiphorus) to find mercy from the Lord on that Day.” (2 Timothy 1:18).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quoting a book does not make it Scripture. Paul quoted pagan poets (Acts 17:28); Jude quoted 1 Enoch. Neither are canonized."
Mind telling me WHO canonizes scripture? Is it Martin Luther?
"Josephus is used as a historical witness, not a theological authority."
So why on earth are you trusting him for your canon of scripture? You haven't answered this. Most Jews at the time thought Christianity was blasphemous, so would you take that "historical" witness, or follow the teachings of the church (which you aren't doing very well).
"The early church used the Septuagint for Greek-speaking converts, but not all books in the Septuagint were treated as canon."
Source on this? And absolutely not 😭. You can't make this stuff up. The Gospel was spread in Greek because it was the universal language at the time. You claim that some church fathers disagreed on their inclusion, but forget to mention that we had lots of disagreements in the church. Such as wether gentiles need to be circumzied. You know what solved those problems? COUNCILS!
"This proves the church was not unified on the canon for centuries. That is not an “argument from silence” it is a well-documented, historical fact."
Yes, and they solved this in later councils like the Council of Hippo.
"No, I’m pulling it from early church documents, church fathers, and historical councils(?). You’re quoting selectively. I’m giving the full picture."
Brother, you have not brought up a single council. As a matter of fact, you even said:" Biblical doctrine must be judged by the Word of God, not by later additions, church councils, or emotional arguments."
You're contradicting yourself.
"The Apocrypha was debated well into the Middle Ages. The Council of Trent (1546) officially defined it in response to the Reformation, proving that even Rome did not consider it infallibly settled beforehand."
Key thing that you're missing here, that you mentioned: "in response to the Reformation". Not because they didn't consider them canon, but because they had to remind people about it.
"If the canon is not universally agreed upon, it is not binding. Protestants return to the Jewish canon affirmed by Christ."
;-; I hope you're joking here. Like genuinely, not trying to be mean. Whether Arianism was true or not wasn't universally agreed upon. So by your logic: "it is not binding". Also, Jesus didn't give us the canon. It was his church that did.
"No, but Scripture is clear on Christ’s divinity. It is not clear that the Apocrypha is inspired. That’s the difference."
If scripture is so clear on Christ's divinity, why was Arianism a problem? It's clear that scripture is in fact, not clear, and depends SEVERLY on intepretation. Why on earth do you think there are 4000 denominations?
"The Reformation clarified canon boundaries based on apostolic use and Hebrew authority. Rome reacted by defining it, not the other way around."
The Reformation/Protestantism is not apostolic. Not a single apostolic church denies the aprochya. And Rome had to redefine it.
"God ordains all things, but He is not the author of sin. Calvinism affirms that people sin freely according to their nature, not by coercion."
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here. You've contradicted yourself twice. God cannot ordain something, and then people are able to act freely. Saying people do wrong out of free choice is just the teaching of free will. If free will is true, God does not ordain all things.
"Acts 2:23: “This Jesus… you crucified and killed… according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.”
Yes, but the plan existed because God knew how they would act, not because he forced it. If I plan to go to the park, does that mean I ordained it?
"Genesis 50:20: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.”"
Again, planning something != ordaining it. This would mean you must believe that God caused them to have pure hatred for their brother and want to kill him, which Jesus himself called sinful.
"Ordain means to sovereignly determine."
That's what I said.
"Ephesians 1:11: “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.”"
Yes, God isn't weak, if he wants to, he can give free will, and still be able to plan around our faults. It's not that difficult.
"Proverbs 16:4: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.”"
Yes, everything that God created has a purpose. Human beings disobey God and stray away from this (The Fall).
-------------
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)
------------
"It actually supports Total Depravity. People choose what they want, and they want sin, not God".
._. Total Depravity kind of makes sense, until you realize that God seems to be oblivious to this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Ezekiel 18:30–32)
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” declares the Lord God.
“Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.
Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed...
Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone... so turn and live.”
(Joel 2:12–13)
“Yet even now,” declares the Lord,
“Return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;
and rend your hearts and not your garments.”
Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and merciful...
(Isaiah 55:6–7)
“Seek the Lord while He may be found;
call upon Him while He is near;
let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the Lord, that He may have compassion on him...”
(2 Chronicles 7:14)
“If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways,
then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
(Matthew 4:17)
“From that time Jesus began to preach, saying,
‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”
“Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3)
“Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out...” (Acts 3:19)
(2 Peter 3:9)
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness,
but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.” (Revelation 3:19)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If Total Depravity is true, why on earth does God tell people, again and again and again and again and again and again and again, to turn from their sin? Would you tell a 4 year old to write an essay? Would tell a donkey to make a youtube video? A fish to breath air? God isn't stupid. Whenever people are seen unable to do stuff, God goes and helps them (1 Kings 19:5–8).
"Councils are fallible, and only carry weight when they agree with Scripture."
Councils are fallible? Oh boy, better throw out the Trinity!
In fact, councils are infallible, as Jesus promised to prevent the church from corruption (Matthew 16:18-19), and the Bible says that the church is infallible(1 Timothy 3:15). Councils are infallible. There is no council that pops stuff into existence.
Nospace
Round 4
Pro
#7
Continued Rule Violations
Before proceeding further, I need to point out that my opponent has continued to disregard the agreed-upon rules of this debate, despite being corrected in Round 2:
- Violation of Round Structure: Round 1 was meant for opening arguments. Con skipped this and launched directly into rebuttals, disrupting the agreed debate flow.
- You misunderstood my earlier comment about Revelation. When I said you only cited Revelation 22:18–19 and Sirach 15, I wasn’t denying that Revelation is Scripture. I was pointing out that neither of those passages actually refute Calvinism, and that Sirach is not part of the Protestant canon as defined in this debate. I fully affirm the book of Revelation as inspired Scripture. You’ve misread my statement. That said, Revelation 22:18–19 refers specifically to the book of Revelation itself, not to the entire canon or to the question of which books belong in Scripture. Using that passage to argue against the Protestant canon or Luther’s rejection of the Apocrypha is a misapplication.
- Dismissive and Informal Tone: Phrases like “K,” “Stuff,” and “😢” do not meet the standard of a formal theological debate on doctrines with eternal consequences. If biblical truth is at stake, we must treat it with seriousness and reverence.
- Failure to Cite Verified Scripture: The rules require full chapter and verse citation from inspired Scripture. My opponent has often omitted this or offered passages not found in the agreed canon.
- This is not about being pedantic. It’s about fairness. I’ve stayed within the guidelines, responding with Scripture, structure, and substance. My opponent has not.
1. Canon and Authority: The Apocrypha Is Not Inspired Scripture
You repeatedly claim the Apocrypha was “removed” by Luther, but this is historically false:
- Luther did not remove any books from Scripture. He included the Apocrypha in his Bible, just in a separate section, identical to what Jerome, Athanasius, and even some early councils did.
- Your appeal to the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage proves my point: there was no ecumenical agreement on canon. These were regional councils, not universally binding. That’s why the canon remained debated until Trent (1546).
Your logic assumes that councils determine truth. But the early church didn't believe that. They tested truth by Scripture (Acts 17:11). Councils can err (e.g., icon veneration at Nicaea II, which Protestants and Eastern Orthodox disagree on).
If councils are infallible, which ones? Trent? Chalcedon? Nicaea II? What about the Robber Council of Ephesus (449 AD)?
- Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as canonical. So did Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Origen (despite your selective quote). Augustine supported it, but many others did not.
And yes, the Septuagint was widely used, especially in the Greek-speaking church, but not all books in it were accepted as Scripture.
- Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Letter, listed the OT canon as 22 books (matching the Hebrew Bible) and excluded the Apocrypha.
- Melito of Sardis (c. 170 AD) traveled to Palestine to confirm the Jewish Scriptures and listed the same canon Protestants accept today, without the Apocrypha.
- Origen distinguished between canonical Hebrew books and “ecclesiastical books” like Wisdom and Sirach.
So yes, the early church used the Septuagint, but also discriminated between books, even as they used them. That’s not “made up” it’s historical fact.
- And yes, Ruth absolutely belongs in the Hebrew canon. It’s part of the Writings (“Ketuvim”) as recognized by the Jews, which Jesus affirmed in Luke 24:44. The fact that it’s not quoted directly in the New Testament is irrelevant. Quotation is not the standard for canonicity. By that logic, books like Esther and Ecclesiastes would also be disqualified, which no one accepts.
Canon was not imposed by the Church. It was recognized by the Church. Apostolic authors did not cite Sirach or Maccabees as Scripture. Paul says the Jews were entrusted with the “oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), and the Jews never considered the Apocrypha canonical.
2. Biblical Clarity Refutes Doctrinal Relativism
You claim the Bible isn’t clear because heresies like Arianism arose. But false teachers don’t prove Scripture is unclear, just that people twist it (2 Pet. 3:16).
- Jesus affirms Scripture is truth (John 17:17).
- Paul says it makes the man of God “complete” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
- God tells His people to test everything by the Word (Isa. 8:20), not by tradition or church authority.
Scripture is clear. Men are not. That’s why we need to return to the Word, not add to it.
3. You Misrepresent Calvinism and Conflate Categories
You wrote:
“If God predetermined our actions, He is the reason we sin. We cannot have free will and also be controlled by God.”
That’s a straw man. Calvinism does not teach that God coerces sin. It teaches that:
- God ordains all things (Eph. 1:11), including human choices.
- Humans act freely according to their nature (John 3:19; Rom. 3:11).
- God remains sovereign, yet morally pure (Hab. 1:13).
You argued that foreknowing is different from ordaining. But Acts 2:23 doesn’t say God merely foresaw Christ’s death. It was “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” Same with Genesis 50:20, God meant the evil for good.
Your analogy (“planning isn’t ordaining”) collapses in light of Scripture, which uses stronger language:
“God meant it,” “God sent me,” “the Lord has made everything for its purpose” (Prov. 16:4).
4. Refuting Objections to Total Depravity
You quote verses where God calls sinners to repent. I agree. But those verses do not disprove depravity. They highlight it.
- Ezekiel 18, Joel 2, Isaiah 55, all show God’s righteous commands.
- But Romans 8:7 says the natural mind is hostile to God and “cannot submit.”
- John 6:44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.”
- Ephesians 2:1–5: “Dead in sin… but God made us alive.”
You ask: Why would God command the impossible? The answer: To reveal our need for grace.
Calvinism doesn’t deny responsibility. It teaches that man is fully accountable, even though enslaved to sin. That’s why salvation must come by divine initiative, not human decision.
5. Biblical Doctrine: Not Determined by Councils, but by Scripture
You wrote:
“The Bible says the church is infallible (1 Tim. 3:15).”
But that verse says the church is a pillar and buttress of the truth, not the source of it. The church upholds truth, it doesn’t invent it.
Jesus said:
- “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17), not “your councils are truth.”
- He rebuked traditions that nullified Scripture (Matt. 15:3–9).
- He upheld the Old Testament canon the Jews had (Luke 24:44), which excluded the Apocrypha.
6. Closing: The Case for Calvinism Still Stands
You did not provide a biblical refutation of any of the five points of Calvinism. Instead, you:
- Appealed to non-canonical texts (Sirach).
- Misrepresented Calvinism’s view of free will and responsibility.
- Claimed councils are infallible, which is neither biblical nor logically consistent.
- Offered no serious exegesis of any Calvinist proof texts like John 6, Romans 9, or Ephesians 2.
Meanwhile, I gave:
- Dozens of Scripture passages affirming:
- Human inability to come to God apart from grace (John 6:44, Rom. 3:10–12)
- God’s sovereign election (Eph. 1:4–5, Rom. 9)
- Christ’s particular redemption for His sheep (John 10:14–15)
- Irresistible grace (Acts 16:14, Rom. 8:30)
- Perseverance of the saints (John 10:28–29, 1 John 2:19)
These doctrines don’t depend on Luther, Jerome, or church councils. They come straight from the Bible.
Lastly, I say this sincerely and with respect: Your conduct in this debate has not reflected the seriousness of the topic. Instead of engaging the biblical arguments, you've relied on mockery, misrepresentation, and deflection. This is a discussion about eternal truths, not a place for sarcasm or shortcuts. I urge you to conduct yourself with the kind of reverence God's Word deserves. And with all due respect, this debate has been titled “Calvinism is Biblical,” not “Is the Apocrypha canonical?” or “Did Luther get it wrong?” Yet most of your arguments have focused on canon formation, historical councils, and sarcastic deflections, not Scripture.
You have not meaningfully engaged with the key Calvinist texts, John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 2, Acts 16, or Romans 8:30, nor have you offered coherent alternatives. That's not a disagreement. That’s a derailment.
The biblical case for Calvinism has been laid out. You’ve avoided it. That speaks volumes.
You have not meaningfully engaged with the key Calvinist texts, John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 2, Acts 16, or Romans 8:30, nor have you offered coherent alternatives. That's not a disagreement. That’s a derailment.
The biblical case for Calvinism has been laid out. You’ve avoided it. That speaks volumes.
Con
#8
Before I begin, I do want to state that your entire structure depends on Martin Luther being correct. If somehow, this 1 guy, is more trustworthy than the church (making up stuff like Sola Scriptora, Sola Fide, which NO apostolic church accepts), then I will back off. This entire thing like: "Sirach isn't scripture", depends on you proving to me that Martin Luther was infallible/inerrant, and no one out of Protestant thinks that.
More rule violations?
1. Ofc, you are incapable of providing me of examples of things I could have opened up with. You know why: "The Con side will argue that Calvinism either misrepresents or goes beyond what the Bible teaches". You're blatantly contradicting yourself.
2. Fine?
3. Ok, I can understand what you're saying, but Elijah wasn't being serious when he fought the Baal worshippers.
4. This is just false, I've given you entire paragraphs worth of scripture. You're resorting to lies. I've given Isaiah, Ezekiel, and many others.
Continuing
1. It is not historically false at all. Removing them from the Biblical canon and saying that they aren't infallible is no different then removing them entirely. Also, mind citing councils? You can't.
2. Fair point, but it still doesn't address why Protestantism is the only denomination to throw them out. It's clearly an addition. I never said that councils determine truth, I said that councils are infallible. As for which are Infallible, I'm Catholic, so my belief is that if the Pope makes a council infallible, it is infallible. You may disagree on this, so I don't mind.
3. You could make the exact same arguement about books like: James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation. Although you are correct in stating that those councils weren't ecuminical, the canon exists because of tradition.
I feel like we aren't even discussing Calvanism but the canon (we can do another for canon), so I'll continue.
1. "But false teachers don’t prove Scripture is unclear, just that people twist it".
I'm pretty sure that Arian wasn't going: "Hee hee heeeehhhhhhhhhh. Let's trick these fools!". Instead it was from pure belief that he was correct. Scripture relies on tradition to be properly intepreted, otherwise you're going to get people saying stuff like women should be priests. If something goes agaist what we were taught, it is heresy (which is why calvinism is heresy). You then proceed to say that scripture is truth, as if I was saying otherwise. All I said is that you need authority to intepret scripture well. There isn't a single person who picked up the Bible and understood stuff right of the bat. That's why Paul in his letters said that not everyone should be teachers, as the spirit gives gifts to who it pleases (1 Corinthians 12:4). Scripture is not clear unless God opens your eyes, or you learn it from a trusted source (not a man 1500 years later. This is like Islam but on steroids).
2. "That’s a straw man. Calvinism does not teach that God coerces sin." Yes I know, I never said that. I said that God predetermines people's actions, just as Calvinism teaches. I am not strawmanning you.
Coerce: "persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats".
"God ordains all things (Eph. 1:11), including human choices." Again, you've just admitted that God is the one who makes people's choices. It's not them that do those actions, it's him. "God remains sovereign, yet morally pure". According to Calvanism, but anyone using the brain God gave them will know that you cannot make someone do evil, and then somehow be good. God doesn't do that. Calvanism invents teachings that the church did not believe for centuries.
3. "You argued that foreknowing is different from ordaining. But Acts 2:23 doesn’t say God merely foresaw Christ’s death. It was “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.”" It literally just means that God knew it would happen and planned it out. You then proceed to contradict yourself ("Citations of Scripture should include chapter and verse for verification.") and only cite one of those verses.
4. Alright, I really like this part though. I actually agree! I myself find that before Christ, I wasn't unable to do good (which is one thing I disagree with), but I would tend to do evil. It was like I was attracted to evil. Now with Christ, it's the other way around. So yes, I like this 👍.
5. "But that verse says the church is a pillar and buttress(?) of the truth, not the source of it. The church upholds truth, it doesn’t invent it." I'm not sure with translation you're using, but you're being pretty fishy with your translation pick here. Almost every translation uses the word FOUNDATION, not buttress. This doesn't mean that the church upholds truth, but that it is the FOUNDATION of truth, as it literally says.
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15, NIV).
6. Jesus didn't say "I am fully man and fully good". That was something that the church gave us. Why do you think that there are so many heresies about Christology? You need the church to help you out, because we humans tend to make errors, but the Holy Spirit guides the church (Acts is very clear about this).
7. Points of calvanism? Oh yea, about those-
T. I agree
U. False. The Bible doesn't teach that God wants specific people to be saved. The Bible teaches that God wants the WORLD to be saved (John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9). This view of election is silly, because it means that God isn't loving. As he will punish MANY people purely because they were unlucky. Let's say that someone is a genuine Christian and loves the Lord. According to Calvanism, if God didn't elect that person (" not on anything foreseen in the person."), they're damned. That isn't merciful. Furthermore, doing basic context will show that Jesus was talking about being Apostles, not about being saved.
N. ope, Scripture teaches that Christ died for all. People are saved based on whether or not they repented, not on if they were chosen: Mark 1:15, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, and many more.
I. Again, this just contradicts the Bible. If God could just pull on people's hearts and they're saved, why not do it for everyone? (I know he's omnipotent, but that's not the point).The scripture teaches that God loves the world so much, that he is willing to die to save as many people. If God just did as Calvanism taught, the whole planet would be saved. But he doesn't. Instead he calls people to him, he calls them to repent, and those who do, are saved (Acts 17:30–31 and Ezekiel 18:21–23).
P. Oh boy oh boy. Did John Calvin read Hebrews?
“For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened... and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God...” (Hebrews 6:4–6) and "“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day... that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.”(Hebrews 3:12–14)
This is also another reason why the church doesn't believe in predestination. Once saved always saved is heresy, and really contradicts the Bible (Hebrews 6:4–6,Hebrews 3:12, 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 2:20, Galatians 5:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Revelation 2:4).
Tunip is a nice accroynm, but the only thing correct about it is Total Depravity. The rest is all false.
"These doctrines don’t depend on Luther, Jerome, or church councils. They come straight from the Bible."
Then why did it take Martin Luther for people to believe in Faith Alone or Sola Scriptora. Why did it take until John Calvin for people to believe in Tunip. It's clear that the Bible depends strongly on intrepretation.
"you've relied on mockery, misrepresentation, and deflection." No I haven't. I don't know where you're getting this from. It's almost as if I didn't say stuff like: " Like genuinely, not trying to be mean." or "I pray this doesn't sound rude, i'm sorry if it does". I agree that this is a serious topic, but you aren't even trying to be proven false. It's almost as if you brought me here purely to prove me wrong, and not to seek truth. If you did, you would be watching non-calvanist views, and trying to understand them. Yes you are right though, It flew off topic really quick. I apologize (except for: "sarcastic deflections", which is purely subjective.) As for those texts that you mentioned, let's do them.
Romans 3:10–12. Oh boy, you have to read this in context or you're going to have to say that people like Moses, Elijah, Mary (why do protestants hate her so much?), John the Baptist, and many others did not seek God.
John 6:44. I agree with Total Depravity here, but you're assuming that people can't reject it, which I don't believe.
Romans 9:15–16. As you said, you must intepret scripture based on other scripture. Otherwise it contradicts passages like Ephesians 2:4, Deuteronomy 4:31, and especially Luke 1:50.
Lets talk mostly about the verses on irrestible grace. “You stiff-necked people... You always resist the Holy Spirit!” (Acts 7:51) or “How often I wanted to gather your children together... but you were unwilling!” (Matthew 23:37) or Galatians 5:4 saying that people can leave God. It's almost as if people are capable of rejecting God! And again, you must intepret scripture based on other scripture.
"You’ve avoided it. That speaks volumes." Alright, sure thing pal.
Round 5
Pro
#9
1. Opening Summary: This Debate Was Not Taken Seriously
This debate was titled “Calvinism is Biblical.” I entered this discussion expecting a biblical exchange on the doctrines of grace. What I encountered instead was a barrage of evasions, emotional appeals, historical rabbit trails, and behavior that disrespects the seriousness of God's truth.
My opponent has spent more time arguing about Martin Luther, the Apocrypha, and church councils than actually addressing the doctrines laid out in Scripture. He made this debate about everything except the topic. And when pressed to exegete Scripture, he defaulted to sarcasm, mockery, and appeals to ecclesiastical authority. That is not how someone defends truth. That is how someone avoids it.
2. The Biblical Case Was Made, and Ignored
Let’s review what I did, and what he refused to do:
- I presented Total Depravity from John 6:44, Romans 3, and Ephesians 2. He agreed in part, then denied its implications without refutation.
- I showed Unconditional Election from Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. He responded with misreadings and emotional objections: “That’s not loving.” But that’s not an argument, that’s a feeling.
- I defended Limited Atonement with John 10 and Matthew 1:21, showing Christ died for His sheep. He ignored the texts and ran to general atonement prooftexts without answering what those specific verses mean.
- I gave Irresistible Grace from Romans 8:30 and Acts 16:14. He responded with Acts 7:51 and said, “See? The Spirit can be resisted” ignoring that those whom God calls in Romans 8 are also justified, meaning they will be saved. He never explained how his theology fits the text. He just waved at other verses.
- I showed Perseverance of the Saints from John 10 and 1 John 2:19. He quoted Hebrews 6, without context, and ignored the surrounding verses that explicitly state God keeps His people.
These doctrines were defended from Scripture. He didn’t refute them. He barely engaged them.
3. What He Did Instead
He spent large portions of this debate defending:
- The Apocrypha
- The infallibility of Roman Catholic councils
- The claim that Scripture is unclear without Church authority
- The idea that Sola Scriptura was “made up” by Luther
That’s not a defense of free will. That’s not a biblical critique of Calvinism. That’s a complete derailment. He failed to stay on topic because he could not win on Scripture. So he changed the subject, again and again.
His behavior wasn’t just unstructured, it was childish. He used:
- Emojis
- Mocking exaggerations
- Sarcastic tone
- Personal attacks
Then claimed to be taking the debate seriously.
He repeatedly broke debate rules, ignored citations, and claimed I was lying when I quoted his words directly. And when I called this out, he accused me of being “unloving” or “closed-minded.” That’s not substance. That’s deflection.
4. The Final Contrast: Scripture vs. Speculation
This isn’t just a disagreement about interpretation. It’s a collision between two worldviews:
- One that submits to the authority of Scripture alone, no matter how uncomfortable.
- One that elevates church tradition and feelings above what the Word actually says.
I came to this debate with Scripture in hand. He came with assumptions and emotion. I asked him to engage John 6, Romans 9, Acts 16, Ephesians 2, and 1 John 2. He didn’t. He couldn’t.
If you vote based on who presented a biblical case, it’s not close. Calvinism was defended from the Word of God. His case was built on distractions, misrepresentations, and doctrinal smokescreens.
5. Final Word: This Was Never About Luther
He tried to make this debate about Luther. It’s not. I don’t follow Luther, I follow the Lord. My case rested on what God has revealed, not what a 16th-century reformer believed.
And that’s the bottom line. I gave you Scripture. He gave you sarcasm. I stayed on topic. He changed it. I honored the format. He broke it. I appealed to God’s Word. He appealed to Rome.
That speaks for itself. And, "Alright, sure thing pal." is not an argument.
Con
#10
Instead of actually arguing with my points, this man just insults me. Don't just take my word for it. He fled on YouTube, and he's fleeing again.
If you read what I've sent, you'll see that I wasn't trying to mock him, but those who are wrong always feel like they're being insulted.
He claims I've been going off topic, but again, if you read what I've sent, you'll see it wasn't. My beginning arguement was with Sirach, because it contradicts core clavanist teachings. Instead of debating this verse, he proceeded to say that Sirach is Aprochrya, and refused to debate it. If a Muslim and a Christian were discussing, and a Muslim brought up a Quran verse, the Christian would debate the meaning of the verse. But if you're talking to this guy, he'll throw out the verse entirely, because he doesn't think it's divine. Even the Church Fathers used people's scripture against them, but he can't. I've said this once and I'll say it again, why is Prostentism the only denomination that rejects the Aprochrya? He can't answer this.
The devil can quote scripture, so sending verses disconnected from their context does not prove Calvinism. Jesus said that he chose his Apostles, but you say he was saying that he predestined them to be saved.
Let's not forget the time I sent PARAGRAPHS worth of scripture showing God telling people to repent, and he somehow said that God is remind people that they need his grace. Where is he getting this from?
You can insult me all you want, calling me a coward, liar, or even insult my church! But you are unable to actually debate me. There's a reason my entire last part was ignored, because I was using scripture to debunk you. I viewed the debate as "Angry Calvinist tries to use scripture while refusing to accept same scripture if it doesn't agree with him and his 500 year old church".
You know someone is losing an argument when they begin to complain that someone isn't acting super serious.
In all, I don't hate you. I hope you come to the Church that Jesus founded, dating back to 2000 years, and not some anti-apostolic 500 year old church that denies the Church's infallibility, and then accepts many of the things it produces.
God bless you my friend, but God "ordained" that I wouldn't take Calvinism seriously.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
There are at least four different versions of the Old Testament that are used among people who call themselves Christians, including Calvinist's, so to debate a subject that depends on Old Testament citation, perhaps it would have been beneficial in the Description to not assume every Bible in existence is acceptable sourcing. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Description of this debate allows: "Biblical: Derived from or supported by the proper interpretation of the Bible." What Bible, then, is "proper," and who defines it? Pro did not. I do not mean Pro is obligated to know, but, since his Resolution maintains that "Calvinism is biblical," Pro ought to have indicated a "biblical" to source allowed argument. As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules? They're open-season, and, R2 is not the appropriate time to suggest more refinement of rule. As such, Round 1 goes to Con for good rebuttal against Pro's arguments, which do not recognize that citation from O.T. verses cannot overrule that Christ has not yet appeared to effect his atonement for the commission of sin, on condition of a sinner's free will to overcome their past sinful behavior, as Con rebuts in R1.
R2: As said, Pro's R2 begins with baseless accusation of Con violation of rules, and includes an inappropriate invitation to forfeit [I'll call that a conduct violation, although a standard debate does not include the four typical categories of voting in ratted debates] when Pro's own definitions in Description allow Con the flexibility expressed by citation of verses apparently not included in Pro's biblical genre [excpet, contrary to Pro's accusation, Revelation, a book. cited by Con, is in the Protestant canon, apparently Pro's biblical version of choice. In fact, it is located in all Christian versions of canon, whether our not John's words apply only to the book oof Revelation, or the entire canon [I happen to agree with Pro that the refer only to the single book], but the book, itself, is in all canons, and is, therefore, a legit source for Con. pro argues Sirach 15 does not reject Calvinism because it is not scripture, but Pro did not forbid its use in debate by not defining a debate-assigned canon. Pro asks "What does scripture teach? Again, which canon, since Pro opened the door to all.
Con's R2 rebuttal is, again, successful. "The irony is insane." Yes, correctly put, since, as I said above, Pro's failure in Description to define the canon of choice for the debate is ironical.
Open the door, Con walked through it. Con takes R2.
R3: Pro accuses Con of still more rule violation citing Con's rebuttal in his frame of R!, when pro's rules mitre R1 is for argument, only. But pro's "rules" cannot violate DebateArt rules, and Debate rules do not distinguish argument and rebuttal; both count as "argument." This is not stipulated, but is obvious to the careful reader. There is a fair "rule" debaters use, that suggests "no new argument in the final round," which avoids blitzkrieg, which is forbidden by rule.
The balance of R3, R4, and pro's R5 are a clash of citations of scripture from both sides, with pro directly challenging that which his Description failed to challenge by not specifying a canon to use in the debate, allowing Con the open-season to cite from apocrypha. Con settled that score in R2, and successfully maintained that position throughout.
Con wins the debate by successful rebuttal against Pro's failure of definition. Next time, Pro, make proper use of your Description. It's yours as instigator to define the road map for the journey, and for potential challengers to accept or reject. When it's left open-season, expect to be challenged, and to complain and accuse afterword is just petty irony.
In my vote, I said, " As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules?" Please read as " As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then Pro accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules? "
🙏🤍✝️
Catholic
Are you EO, OO or Catholic?