Is Calvinism True?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
We will be arguing over whether Calvinism is valid or not. Calvinism is the belief that God handpicks who can be saved rather than it being a choice.
This boils down to the nature of choice. Con elaborated on his position well throughout. Separating knowledge about the choice from the freedom of making that choice.
This is not an intuitive argument, but I get it. Specifically - it’s like knowing my daughter will pick chocolate over vegetables - even though she has the free choice.
This is actually a good argument, I felt it had more weight than it appeared at first glance.
Unfortunately, I believe pros point here is valid. If God chooses everything from the start, with a plan, with perfect knowledge he has the ability to set up the guiding factors of you, your life and your decisions in such a way that you could be led to make the right choice or the wrong choice.
Gods perfect knowledge is one part - but he is also the creator and has full control of everything.
That gives him at least indirect control over your free will, and his decision not to give you every chance to be saved in every way seems to support Calvinism.
As a result, pros argument wins here.
Arguments to pro.
In regards to vote.
Isaiah 43:13 mentioned by con is adequate evidence to prove that God does manipulate the will of man, This went uncontested and also unsupported however it does validate con's stance FOR calvinism. The other verses in themselves show the omniscience and omnipotence respectively. "I shall work and who shall let it?" this is a question directed at everything. Who can stop the Lord from his work? Not the will of man, not the heavens, not earth, not demons or angels or any other spirit.
Following on that, i believe the source in its self is acceptable in the context of this debate and really is the star of the show.
Pro's source of ephesians 1:1-5 is not broadened in the context of the actual verses.
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Verse 1 affirms paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ by the Will of God. verse 4-5 Talks about predestination of those who are Chosen in Jesus before earth was even created and predestinated US (referring to saints) To the adoption of children (Status, children of God) by Jesus Christ himself according to The good pleasure of his will.
And pro's website does not negate the process and certainty of predestination by focusing the faithful as predestined. Who made the saints faithful? If that question were answered and the answer was the saint/individual himself, Then he could potentially have won the debate.
Both had acceptable grammar and conduct.
RFD
Argument Point.
Con's argument was to source bible verses in order to show biblical examples of god selecting people for heaven and proofs of free will. Con's argument rested upon the argument that Calvinism is a violation of free will, this argument seems intuitive to con's statements.
Pro simply makes the bold assertion that God is speaking through him and declares that Calvinism is true. Pro also supported this by showing that God has predetermined knowledge, although pro did not show motivation for god to violate free will.
After con rightly pointed out that pro had not supported his claim. Pro finally went on to provide biblical sources, which are key to this debate. This prevented pro from losing outright. However, Con routinely rebutted all of these points by pointing out that Pro had not shown examples or motivation for any impositions of will. This ended up being key for the winner to score the BoP
In the end. Pro was never able to show motivations or examples for impositions on will and therefore, I award the argument point to Con
Tied in sources and grammar.
Pro's conduct in this debate was unsavory at best, but I wasn't sure if it should qualify as being excessive or not, therefore, I begrudgingly give a tie for conduct.
I apologize. I was called into work and had forgotten about it. I will post one soon
thanks for the vote, I really appreciate the promises you keep.
Isaiah was given as proof of omnipresence, not God controlling free will, which is why I ignored it
Also, why did you give Rational sources?
I'm not even sure what RFD stands for, i'm talking with bsh1 about it, you entered in biblical evidence that supports God forcing free will, yet it seems to be forgotten by you and dismissed by speedrace.
I got it
I'll post a vote tomorrow. I think you won hands down
I'm a bit behind on the report log. I will work on it as soon as I can
This site is A JOKE!
Melcharez's RFD is for me winning wtf happens???
You want to change your vote? PM me about it.
Based on my voting, is it possible instead award the arguement to rational? Because he did give proof of God controlling free will, it was just swept under the rug so to speak.
Please do make this your first stop, darlings.
Fantastic lying skills, I am impressed by your RFD.
It is the belief that God chose certain people to become Christians and excludes others
As even the sins*
Not as seven
What is calvinism?
John 14:6 is just saying that you cannot go to heaven unless you accept and take Jesus as your Lord and Savior. It's saying that no one gets to see God and heaven without humbling him/herself and admitting their fallibility to Jesus, who will then take the burden of their sins.
>That scripture has to do specifically with Jews. This passage explains it better: etc.
I don't get it. To me it appears to explain the verse John 6:65 but not 14:6.
1 Timothy 2:4 says: "[God] will have all men to be saved, And to come unto the knowledge of the truth. "
How could this be true if God selects only certain people to go to heaven? In fact, Why would he create certain people in the first place if he wasn't going to allow them to enter heaven? It makes no sense. In fact, It would entail controlling their free will:
first off, i have no idea what translation you are using, ill use a NASB. "Who DESIRES all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
This right here shows 2 possible thoughts, either God is speaking specifically to those he has elected, or he is expressing a desire for all men to seek him and be saved, obviously stating his desire but not his fore determined will.
John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already?
Besides this, You're basically saying that God has condemned people to sin beyond their free will, But God hates sin more than anything else. So you're essentially saying that he created people to do something he hates and they can't control it.
No one can come to God except whom he has drawn. when he is talking, he is encouraging his disciples to not be troubled, They believe in God, so they believe also in him (Jesus Christ) Thomas asked him "How do we know the way?" Jesus tells him that he is the way and that no one can reach the father except through him. verse 7 actually helps with context. "If you had known Me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him, and have see Him.
Yes, he fore ordained people that would sin so that he would show his wrath and fulfill his purpose and his glory through their destruction. Isaiah 46:10, just as he fore ordained people to salvation to show mercy. Romans 9:19-23
I'll challenge you
You should have debated me on this issue. Rational has no interest in predestination nor does he believe in it.
That scripture has to do specifically with Jews. This passage explains it better:
"Jesus is speaking to Jews whose hearts are not right with God. They are not faithful Jews and do not know the Father. Because they are not in right covenant relationship with the Father, they cannot recognize the perfect expression of the Father in the Son. Since they are not willing to do the Father’s will they cannot properly discern the truth of Christ’s words (John 7:17). Those who know the Father will recognize the truth of Christ’s words and be “drawn” to Him (6:44, 45, cf. John 3:21). They will be given to the Son and come to faith in Him as a result (6:37). To them alone has the Father granted access to the Son (6:65).
The passage has to do with the Father giving the faithful Jews to their long awaited Messiah. It has nothing to do with a pre-temporal unconditional election of certain sinners to come to faith in Christ. This is a conclusion that many have read into this passage according to a prior commitment to a theological system without any contextual warrant.
Jesus assures anyone who would come to Christ in faith that they will not be rejected. They will be accepted in the Beloved One of God (6:37)."
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/john-665/
You wrote:
John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already?
John is confused. In the verse you quoted (John 14:6), Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me."
Yet, in John 6:65 Jesus says "... no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. "
If true, these two verses make it impossible to come to Jesus or to the Father.