Instigator / Con
13
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#679

Is Calvinism True?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
18
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.