Instigator / Pro
Points: 28

According to the bible, Is fatalism valid?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Melcharaz
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 13
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
This should be interesting!   I'll go ahead and link scripture that supports the idea of fatalism.
Ephesians 1:4-13
Romans 8:28-30  9:10-23
Colossians 1:12-23
1 Peter 1:2
2 Thessalonians 2:12-17

why wasn't it talked about in the old testament by prophets?
Proverbs 16:4
1 Corinthians 2:6-15
1 Peter 1:18-20

Why is this doctrine often misunderstood or disliked?

There are many reasons why its not liked, Most people just don't agree with the bible and its precepts, people that do often don't like the idea that they are going to hell whether they will it or not, but that's a misunderstanding, we all have a choice in whether we serve God or not, Just because God already knows and has predestined that we won't make it doesn't make him the bad guy for you choosing to disobey in the first place. 

Its often misunderstood because there is a difference between prescribed will and God's ultimate Goal.  I however, have a hard time explaining that myself, If any are interested i would suggest watching Dr James white and his videos regarding predestination where he goes into depth about the will of God and its timing.

I invite voters to keep an eye on my spelling, often i misspell things.

I look forward to Contester's rebuttal!
Published:
The debate's subject is "Is fatalism valid, according to the Bible".

I will just blanket acknowledge that the Bible has verses that can be interpreted to support both free will and fatalism; I have no contentions with the existence of the scriptural support.

My contentions are whether or not fatalism in the Bible is "valid"; valid meaning true or logical. I would argue that it is impossible to logically have both fatalism and free will simultaneously, because they are dichotomous by definition. If one exists, the other cannot.

fatalism: the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.
free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
omniscient: knowing everything.

Prescribed will is not the same thing as fatalism. My opponent made the mistake of equivocating them in his opening argument.

The Bible heavily advocates for the existence of free will; without free will, original sin is void, Hell is a predestined inescapable consequence of death, etc.

God cannot logically know the future (omniscience/fatalism) if humans are agents of free will, because the future is a compounded set of free-will based decisions that have not been decided yet.

Fatalism and free will are mutually exclusive, and the Bible illogically proposes both coexist. This claim is obviously impossible. Because of it, fatalism in the Bible cannot be considered valid without obliterating Christianity.
Round 2
Published:
I will just blanket acknowledge that the Bible has verses that can be interpreted to support both free will and fatalism; I have no contentions with the existence of the scriptural support.

Then we are done, I am not here to debate logical validity of fatalism. I am here to ask if according to the bible it is valid.
Published:
What do you even mean when you say "is it valid". Explain please. Examples too.
Round 3
Published:
in this context, grounded or sound.  an established doctrine in the scriptures.  Also if you are going to argue free will and fatalism cannot go together, please use scriptural support to show this. 

Published:
Anything can be "interpetable" from the Bible.

Why do I need to use scriptural support? I already proved they are incompatible and it's invalid to have them both coexist. You conceded that point, so I win.
Added:
--> @killshot
Im not concerned with what other christians think. Also, you never find the concept of free will in the bible. There are many proofs throughout the bible of God overriding the free will of man. Nebuchadrezzar in the book of daniel is one.
the thing that makes understanding it hard is the that god outside of time fore knew and fore ordained all the would be, and he is consistently invovled in all of it, despite his timelessness.
Instigator
#33
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Are you saying Adam and Eve did not bite the fruit with their own volition? If so, you are basically deconstructing Christianity with the revocation original sin. All of Christianity is grounded in the concepts of free will, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who disagrees with that.
You cannot then logically argue for fatalism, whether scripturally supported or not. This dichotomy directly leads to delusional thinking, because the individual is forced to compartmentalize their conflicting beliefs; conflicting, meaning the coexistence of free will and fatalism.
Contender
#32
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Noted, I will be more clear next time and ill make sure to mention if im debating scripturally or not, I didn't consider that my title and thought would actually lead to this scenario!
Instigator
#31
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
I had a similar debate on DDO where I had the topic "If heaven is real, it's mostly filled with atheist" and my opponent immediately started off by denying heaven and god when I specifically placed those in the description as necessary presuppositions for the argument. so I can sympathize with you here.
#30
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Well, we might have opposite beliefs on just about every conceivable level. But I support your right to express them and I want to see arguments where opponents concede things when it's time to be conceded.
#29
Added:
--> @Wrick-It-Ralph
I could hug you! I know you don't necessarily believe what i do, But im grateful that you understood what i was trying to say, i was hoping for a scriptural debate instead of a logic debate. Im afraid im not proficient in logic to such a degree as i am with scripture.
Instigator
#28
Added:
can you prove the bible supports free will?
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
As @ram pointed out, showing the Bible contains "ABC" is useless. You can literally find anything in Biblical scripture to support a position; that was a point I immediately made. From that point, my argument extended into the logistics of it. You did a poor job of defining your terms and conditions. Just because you couldn't box me into a scripture-only debate, it does not mean my argument was invalid.
Contender
#26
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
Yes, I understand that, but you're missing the point. I said fatalism was NOT valid, BECAUSE the Bible ALSO claims people have free will, and these two concepts cannot logically coexist. Therefore, any proclamation of fatalism is invalid.
Contender
#25
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
BoP in debates such as this is normally shared you have to show your position is valid - and your opppnened has to also - with the winner decided primarily by who does the best in the face of your opponents argument.
As a result, you had a burden to show that according to the Bible, fatalism is valid: as I stated in my vote - I don’t feel that simply posting some scripture and stating “here are where the bible supports it” is sufficient on those grounds.
#24
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Vote Reported: Ramshutu // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for decision: This vote is sufficent
#23
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
There was no need to provide arguement for or against it as no arguement was given by the contender, how can i argue what isn't contested? As to context, the scriptures are specifically about fatalism/predestination. Again, i stress the bible as a scholarly work and to be cited and treated as such. As no contest was given against the bible or the context, i feel i should have won the source and arguement vote. You can reduce my conduct vote if you feel i acted in error in reproving/not reproving the contender's assertion of the source not being logical.
Instigator
#22
Added:
--> @killshot
Scripture is both authorized and a scholarly work. the bible didn't just exist. Ive cited references that are logical in nature to support fatalism. Interpretation is not the issue. Free will didn't even come into the picture, i was asking if fatalism is valid according to the bible.
Instigator
#21
Added:
--> @Melcharaz
You referenced some scripture, so what? Nothing about your argument required the use of scripture only for the debate. I agreed that both cases can be interpreted from scripture. The debate subject was "is it valid", and valid wasn't defined. Just because the scripture allows for fatalism and free will does not make it logically correct; that was my entire premise, and that is why it's not "valid".
Contender
#20
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
The free will question i asked to killshot but forgot to mention him. sorry.
Instigator
#19
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro made it clear that this was from a biblical perspective. Con did not meet the rules.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I will consider this almost a full forfeiture on behalf of con. Con did not provide a single argument and seemed to not understand what this debate was about. Pro provided several arguments from scripture to prove that the Bible can support fatalism. For example:
Ephesians 1:4-13
Romans 8:28-30 9:10-23
Colossians 1:12-23
1 Peter 1:2
2 Thessalonians 2:12-17
What this debate was sorely lacking was clarity. I feel Pro needs to make clear what the topic is actually about.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I'm awarding the argument point to Pro. Here are my reasons.
It was made very clear in the title that this debate was meant to be from a biblical perspective, so I will judge the argument accordingly.
Pro citied many biblical verse to support the claim of fatalism, These verses contained many instances of god imposing on will and demonstrated that God, does in fact know the future and can impose on us to achieve it.
Pro also put the verses into context towards the end of his opening, but I would have liked a more robust argument in general. Still, pro still meets the burden by rightly stating that god knows if we're going to hell. This was really the key point and this was support by pros sources. Even if everything else pro said was wrong, this fact wins the argument point.
Con argued in bad faith and did not make arguments that align with the bible. I am not against using logic in this case. However, the logic must assume that the bible is true because that is the premise of this debate.
Con creates a false dichotomy by saying that free will and fatalism cannot exist simultaneously. Since we are judging from the bible, the bible makes it clear this is possible because while god can see into the future, god IMPOSES on people's will, which Pro pointed out. In order to impose on a will, one must have a free will to be imposed on.
Con states god cannot know the future. this is an argument in bad faith. Con was not using the bible as context for this argument because the bible states this is clearly possible
Con argues that free will must exist in the bible, but this is only a good argument based on the false dichotomy that Con created.
Arguments in subsequent rounds were short and did little to add to the argument.
Ultimately, I Gave the point to Pro because Pro provide sufficient proof for me to believe beyond reasonable doubt. Speaking strictly in a biblical context. Con's loses the point because the only biblical argument made was for free will and this did not rebut Pro.
Con provided no sources and was lacking to the point of needing them. Pro provided robust sources. For example:
Ephesians 1:4-13
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[a] predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[c] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen,[d] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
Footnotes:
Ephesians 1:5 Or sight in love. 5 He
Ephesians 1:5 The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.
Ephesians 1:9 Or us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he
Ephesians 1:11 Or were made heirs
I used NIV version here just so people know.
This source clearly references free will in the beginning and at the same time says that you are "sealed" which if you read the context, means that god has already chosen your fate.
I award conduct point to Pro because of Con's excessive conduct violation. Con took the debate on bad faith knowing that the topic required an assumption of the bible. This essentially ruined Pro's debate and was not the reason that Pro started it. This misconduct was so bad that it brought the debate to a screeching halt in round 2 and I think it is in the nature of good conduct to accept the topic in order for both side to have fun in the debate.
Grammar and spelling tied.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I am not sure how to score this debate.
While the debate appear to be “according to the bible, is fatalism valid”. Yet pro appears to be arguing external to the bible, and whether the doctrine is misunderstood or disliked.
I’m that vein, I feel that pro clearly took down the notion of fatalism as valid that pro was trying to argue for in the opening round.
That being said, I view the resolution as king, and in the absence of descriptions, my initial reaction is that this was a debate about whether fatalism is a valid biblical belief- not a valid belief.
Saying this, when viewed as the resolution - I don’t think that pro provided warrant to support his position. Simply linking scripture on its own, without argument or context is not sufficient on its own to fulfill pros burden of proof.
As a result, I feel the only real way to come down on this is a tie.