Instigator / Con
14
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#707

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
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1504
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Description

No information

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:

Why does neither side define Calvinism? Ugh! So my understanding after googling it, is that the events of the world are predestined - and those who are saved do not get to chose, its down to Gods implicit choice.

Con starts out by pointing out the major theological issues with Calvinism: specifically he points out that scriptures make repeated reference to everyone being redeemable.

Pros opening round primarily just explains what Calvinism is. It does not appear to lay out a specific justification for why this is the correct interpretation of the bible.

Cons rebuttal of the premise continues - pointing out it means that God would be directly involves in the creation of sin, and points out some additional scriptural quotes where the idea of free choice appears to refute the concept of predestination. Con drops a very intuitive example of children in a test that clearly explains why this logic is incorrect.

Reading through pros entire round 2, this appears to be, primarily an attempt to explain how a Calvinistic interpretation could be correct despite appearing to have a number of flaws. There are a lot of points to individually list here - but reading this round twice, there is no justification: any argument to explain why Pros position is correct, it appears mostly an assertion that he is correct, then using examples to explain contradictions.

This pattern is repeated into round 3, where the most relevant portions involve con pointing out the scriptural weakness of pros position, and why it seems to not make sense in terms of generalized understanding of the bible and what God wants for everyone.

Pros round 3 again, constitutes more of an attempt to explain how he can reconcile Calvinism with the Bible - but does not justify the claim itself.

This really continues as the pattern between round 4 and finally 5. There is a lot of back and forth on whether a Calvinistic explanation is contradicted by the bible, but still there doesn’t appear much in the way of outright justification from pro.

If the resolution was Calvinism is compatible with the Bible, I may have had a different vote - but as it is whether Calvinism is True - and pro did not provide a justification to this effect - arguments must be awarded to con.

All other points tied.

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 voter is bewildered by the popularity of debating questions of faith in any forum of reason. Faith is defined by the absence of reason: if one could prove it logically it would not be faith. Logic is defined by the absence of faith, if it can't be proved it is not true.

Here, we are so far from reasoned discourse that neither participant bothers to state thesis or definition, precept or assumption. Neither side, for example, bothers to identify the Bible as their exclusive source, neither bothers to define Calvinism for readers. By R3, both sides essentially admit that they aren't interested in debating Calvinism but rather the notion of predestination as evidenced by the Bible.

Con's arguments are

Calvinism states that a pre-selected few achieve salvation
The Bible states that all men can be saved
Calvinism contradicts the Bible

Preselection refutes the value of conversion.
The Bible endorses evangelism.
Calvinism contradicts the Bible.

Predestination implies the incorruptibility of salvation.
The Bible says salvation can be forsaken
Calvinism contradicts the Bible.

Pro's R1 asserts that predestination is manifestly true.

"The scriptures show heavy evidence of God who predetermines...'
To accept predestination gives glory to God and makes humans afraid of their own humanity.
One can tell the people who are predestined to be saved by their claims of salvation, everyone else is unpredestined & therefore unsaved.

In R2, Con continues to support "all men can be saved" with biblical passages. Pro refutes by saying "some men can't be saved but its all up to God and essentially unknowable, even to the saved." Pro end R2 by stating that Pro is not a defender of Calvinism only predestination.

R3-R5 continues in much the same way.
Con has faith that a loving God includes any who choose him as the path to salvation. Pro has faith that God determines how men choose salvation and worship and deprives some of salvation for doing as forced. Pro denies any injustice to this: In the puppet box, we are all puppets alike, it's just that Geppetto has foreordained the fire for some puppets.

Both sides toss in many citations. The Bible both states and contradicts that all men can be saved. The Bible endorses and contradicts evangelism. The Bible both implies and contradicts the incorruptibility of salvation.
The problem with this increases as rounds progress: it is clear that this work's strange discontinuities, anachronistic morals and ambiguous language make the Bible pretty weak as a rational source of evidence. That this single source is continually shown to offer contradictory evidence regarding predestination gradually increases the proof that this source is at least sometimes, perhaps oftentimes, unreliable, certainly never published with the intention of representing a single point of view. So neither side is awarded sources because both sides relied exclusively on the same single and unreliable source. Likewise, because both sides' arguments relied exclusively on the same single and unreliable source I don't think it can be fairly said one side achieved any persuasive advantage over the other. If asked which cosmology sounds more appealing, this voter would fall into Con's camp. But my job is to assess who made a more convincing case regarding Calvinism, or really predestination as it turns out, and neither side achieved any warranted claim.

Tied all around.