OPEN CHALLENGE TO THE CALVINISTS-structured paltalk debate

[Daywalker]

I would like to cast my gauntlet down at the feet of the Calvinists on TWEB.

I would like to give a Calvinist the chance to prove from scripture their TULIP. I have heard that the reformed faith believed in debate, so this should be right up your alley.

Pick a point off of the Tulip to debate. Only one point per debate. This would be a LIVE debate via paltalk. I am positive that tweb would mod a debate such as this.

There was somebody that I was to debate on LImited Atonement. He has not followed through. I would prefer to start there. Please, only GENUINE mainstream, diehard, Calvy's. No Calvy's that profess to believe in LFW and/or reject determinism.
Grace and Peace,
The AntiTulip

T otal Openenss of God's person
U nderstandable MIGHT determinants
L ibertarian Free Will
I nfinite past and present knowledge
P artially open future

['Iwavvnv644]

You cant start with Limited Atonement! You have to start with Total Depravity. To understand why you need God, how horrible you are, and that you cant save yourself, etc.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I would like to cast my gauntlet down at the feet of the Calvinists on TWEB.

I would like to give a Calvinist the chance to prove from scripture their TULIP. I have heard that the reformed faith believed in debate, so this should be right up your alley.

Pick a point off of the Tulip to debate. Only one point per debate. This would be a LIVE debate via paltalk. I am positive that tweb would mod a debate such as this.

There was somebody that I was to debate on LImited Atonement. He has not followed through. I would prefer to start there. Please, only GENUINE mainstream, diehard, Calvy's. No Calvy's that profess to believe in LFW and/or reject determinism.
Grace and Peace,
The AntiTulip

T otal Openenss of God's person
U nderstandable MIGHT determinants
L ibertarian Free Will
I nfinite past and present knowledge
P artially open future

Would love to hear it! Keep me posted, brother.

[geebob]

You cant start with Limited Atonement! You have to start with Total Depravity. To understand why you need God, how horrible you are, and that you cant save yourself, etc.

as the issue is coherence, you can start just about anywhere. If your view of atonement is wrong, unbiblical, and unreasonable, perhaps you should rethink your view of depravity. It can go either way.

[Jimby_Aus]

as the issue is coherence, you can start just about anywhere. If your view of atonement is wrong, unbiblical, and unreasonable, perhaps you should rethink your view of depravity. It can go either way.

Actually Tulip is a coherent belief set, the basis for particular redemption is unconditional election. If God has chosen for himself a particular people, then it naturally follows that Christ came to save those people by virtue of a perfect and complete atonement on their behalf. Its not possible to debate limited atonement without first establishing an unconditionally elect people given to Christ in eternity. Total depravity is the basis for for unconditional election, since a man in bondage to a sinful nature and dead in his tresspasses cannot possibly be a candidate for conditional election, and so it goes..

Jimby.

[Xmansmommy]

Awwwwwww no takers yet?

[Jimby_Aus]

I would like to cast my gauntlet down at the feet of the Calvinists on TWEB.

There was somebody that I was to debate on LImited Atonement. He has not followed through. I would prefer to start there.

Ofcourse you want to start there, but the logical place to start would be at the begining with Total Depravity & Unconditional election, with a solid exegetical debate of a passage like John Chapter 6.

Jimby.

[geebob]

Actually Tulip is a coherent belief set

actually, that's why you can start from other parts of the TULIP to critique it. If it is coherent within itself then debunking one part weekens or disproves most of the rest.

Its not possible to debate limited atonement without first establishing an unconditionally elect people given to Christ in eternity.

of course it's possible to debate it. If limited atonement is shown to be unbiblical, then we have an indication that the view of unconditional election is probably also unbiblical...assuming scripture is unified and infallible.

[themuzicman]

Ofcourse you want to start there, but the logical place to start would be at the begining with Total Depravity & Unconditional election, with a solid exegetical debate of a passage like John Chapter 6.

Jimby.

Piece of cake. Just remember that "drawing" in verse 44 is the conditional, and verse 45 clairfies verse 44.

Michael

[Jimby_Aus]

of course it's possible to debate it. If limited atonement is shown to be unbiblical, then we have an indication that the view of unconditional election is probably also unbiblical...assuming scripture is unified and infallible.

My point is that its not possible to isolate limited atonement as if it was some kind of stand alone truth unrelated to unconditional election. The two (5 even) stand interdependent, and one cannot expect a calvinist to substantiate limited atonement without also addressing election in some foundational fashion. It would be like trying to argue the authority of the Bible, without first addressing inspiration. Without inspiration the bible has no arguable authority. Without an elect people, who cares one wit about arguing for a limited atonement, no Calvinist would, so why argue it that way.

Jimby.

[themuzicman]

In fact, Calvinist's view of election is based in Calvinist's view of Total Depravity and the Calvinist's view of predestinantion and foreknowledge. Limited atonemement, then, is a necessary doctrine for unconditional election and irresistable grace.

The whole thing is a house of cards for which very few, if any, can be removed without the entire house collapsing on itself.

Michael

[Jimby_Aus]

Piece of cake. Just remember that "drawing" in verse 44 is the conditional, and verse 45 clairfies verse 44.
Michael

Im guessing I take that as a joke?

[themuzicman]

half-n-half.

Calvinists love to proof-text John 6:44 without considering verses 45-47. I'm sure a careful exegesis of John 6 would lead the honest seeker away from Calvinism's interpretation of this section of scripture.

Michael

[geebob]

My point is that its not possible to isolate limited atonement as if it was some kind of stand alone truth unrelated to unconditional election.

yes, that's why disproving it would disprove unconditional election.

and one cannot expect a calvinist to substantiate limited atonement without also addressing election in some foundational fashion.

he has to at least show that it doesn't conflict with scripture. it could be alleged to be indirectly related to scripture via unconditional election. but that does not mean that an arminian could show contrary to the calvinist that scripture is incompatible with limited atonement.

It would be like trying to argue the authority of the Bible, without first addressing inspiration.

actually, we do indeed need to argue for the authority of scripture on other levels apart from inspiration. of course you need to address inspiration, but other issues have to be dealt with as well. If scripture is shown to elegantly reveal subtleties of human nature, then that's a bonus for it's authority. If it's shown to relate history in a way that is normal for the time and place it was written in, there's another bonus.

what if scripture was inspired but it still didn't mach reality. Well then, God would be a liar then.

Without an elect people, who cares one wit about arguing for a limited atonement, no Calvinist would, so why argue it that way.

a calvinist doesn't argue it that way...as far as I can tell. But an arminian would argue that limited atonement is contrary to scripture and the calvinist has to meet those challenges.



what I'm saying is simply valid.

Here's what you said.

If God has chosen for himself a particular people, then it naturally follows that Christ came to save those people by virtue of a perfect and complete atonement on their behalf.

this is a simple conditional here. and as such, if it is true (actually, even if it isn't true) modus tollens applies to it.

the form of modus tollens goes as follows
If A then B
Not B
therefore Not A.

If God has elected individuals on the basis of his will alone, then the atonement was only for those individuals.

It is not true that the atonement is only for a select few specific individuals.

therefore, God has not elected individuals on the basis of his will alone.

This is valid in the technical sense of the term.

[Ken]

Micahel, you said

I'm sure a careful exegesis of John 6 would lead the honest seeker away from Calvinism's interpretation of this section of scripture.

I'm sure a careful exegesis of John 6 would lead the honest seeker away from Arminianism and Open Theist's interpretation of this section of scripture.