This is the thread devoted to the debate that Jevan and Calvin have agreed to undertake after a bit of discussion through email exchanges. The resolution to this debate will be: "Calvinism is Biblical." Jevan will be taking the affirmative while Calvin will be taking the negative.

The rules for the debate are as follows:


1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. Jevan will present the opening post, Calvin will rebut.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

After having a few IM debates with Calvin following his renouncement of these five points, we decided it would be easier if we had them in this forum. Calvin and I agreed that I would first provide a brief outline of the five points, and then he would follow with a response.

With that said, Calvinism holds that God is sovereign is all things, everything is working according to His will. With that, the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) follow:

Total Depravity Total depravity means that mans nature is corrupt, and sinful throughout. The word total is used to show that the whole of mans being has been effected by sin. This corruption extends to every part of man, including his body and soul. In short, sin has effected all of mans faculties, including his mind and will this means that man is unable to do what is truly good in Gods eyes, but rather, does evil all the time.

This teaching of mans total depravity is clearly found in scripture. As early as Genesis 6:5 were told that, The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

As a result of this corruption, man is enslaved to sin, rebellious and hostile toward God, blind to truth and unable to save himself or even prepare himself for salvation.

Unconditional Election It would have been perfectly just for God to have left all men in their sins, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). God is under no obligation to any one of us. Its in this context that the Bible teaches the doctrine of election.

Unconditional election states that before the foundation of the world, without considering any foreseen merits of man, God chose particular individuals from among all those who are fallen to give the undeserved gift of eternal life to.

Limited Atonement This point teaches that Christs atonement was definite in design and accomplishment, it teaches that the atonement was intended to render complete satisfaction for all those that the Father had chosen before the foundation of the world, no one else. Calvinists dont believe that the atonement is limited in its value if the Father had willed it, all the people of all generations could be saved. Rather, Calvinists believe that the atonement is limited in that it is designed for some, and not others.

Irresistible Grace Although the general outward call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, the inward call of the Spirit never fails. Irresistible Grace teaches that the grace which the Holy Spirit extends to the elect (those that the Father chose) cannot be thwarted or refused, it never fails to bring them to true faith in Christ.

The Perseverance of the Saints This point teaches that all those that the Father elects cannot fall away. As far as I know, Calvin still agrees with this point.


The five points stand or fall together. If one point is proven wrong, all of the points fall with it. If you accept one point (with exception to "P"), you must accept all the others or be faced with a terribly inconsistent theology.

God is sovereign, but His will has both an antecedent and consequential aspect to it. It is much like any other parent, who 'wills' for their child to behave, but if that child does not, they will be punished --- this does not mean that the parents antecedent will is to spank their child, but this IS the consequential will. Even on earth, parents often know that the child will misbehave, but they do not coerce the child into misbehaving, nor do they then FORCE the misbehavior due to their knowledge that the child would do such. There is certainly some mystery to the fact that God is all-knowing, and completely sovereign, and yet allows us free will. But we must remember always that God is outside of time, and all time is present to Him at once. So God really does not 'foresee' anything ⦠He simply SEES it.
His antecedent will: 'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' (2Pet3:9)

And his consequential will, based on our actions:

'If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.' (Jer18:8-10) [this is right after Jer18:6, which Paul quotes from in Romans 9:21, a favorite proof-text of Calvinists to deny free will.]

'And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.' (Rev22:19)

Total Depravity?

In Genesis 6:8, God says that Noah had found favor with Him. This would mean that the 'EVERY' manâs inclination was only sinful was not an ALL inclusive 'all, ' but a general 'all.' Man is certainly depraved, after the fall, but not TOTALLY depraved. Created still in our creators image and likeness, the flesh is not 'all and only evil.'

'And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.'(Genesis 7:1)

Unconditional Election?

If there is free will, then this one, i believe, neccessarily falls. Unconditional election should be discussed on its own (as all 5 points may) and the intent of this post is merely some opening statements.

Limited Atonment?

(1Jon2:2) 'And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD'

(1Tim2:3-6)'For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time.'

And if Unconditional election is false, then Limited atonement thus fails logically.

Irresistable Grace?

(Matt23:37) :O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and YE would not!'
This shows that God (Jesus) WOULD have done something, but those people had free choice NOT to follow Him. Irresistible grace, to my understanding, would say that if God WOULD have done something, then it WOULD simply be, and those people would not have had a choice to reject what God clearly willed (antecedent will, of course, as discussed earlier)

Also, Augustine taught about both God's operating grace, and about a co-operating grace, in which man had free will to co-operate with God. Calvin may have taught against free will, and used Augustine, but he did so in error.

Perseverance of the Saints?

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev22:19)
Also, if justification, like sanctification, is a process, then it is indeed possible to lose that justification. God knows who will and will not endure until the end, but that does not mean we cannot fall in and out of a state of grace throughout our lives.

If once saved, always saved IS true, due to Godâs sovereignty, then it can never be said that we are saved when we confess Christ, but when we are conceived. The logical conclusion of unconditional election means that we are saved at conception, because we are predestined for Heaven at that time. All conversion stories, then, would be mere tales, as we are not then saved at a point in our lives, but only at our creation.

And because my opponent is a student of Augustine:

"It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children--whom He HAS regenerated in Christ--to whom He HAS given faith, hope, and love, God does NOT give perseverance also." Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, 18 (A.D. 427).

'Let the inquirer still go on, and say, 'Why is it that to some who have in good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the end?' Why except because he does not speak falsely who says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, doubtless they would have continued with us.' Are there, then, two natures of men? By no means. If there were two natures there would not be any grace, for there would be given a gratuitous deliverance to none if it were paid as a debt to nature. But it seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to receive perseverance to the end. But God has judged it to be better to mingle some who would not persevere with a certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure.' Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, 19 (A.D. 429).

Calvin may have thought he was an Augustinian, but St. Augustian would have certainly had some corrective marks for him.

Calvin's theology is at least consistant with itself for the most part. Calvinism, though, is the logical conclusion of Luther's theology. And the 'logical conclusion' of a very errant theology will still remain false.

As we've agreed that this debate will be much easier if we take it one point at a time, I will start with a further explanation of the first point of Calvinism, total depravity.

Before we start, I think it's important to clear up a common misconception which Matt has bought into regarding total depravity, total depravity is not absolute depravity. Many people I have discussions on Calvinism with believe that total depravity teaches man is as bad as he can possibly be, all the time. That is an absolute depravity. To be totallaly depraved, however, indicates not that a man is as evil as he can possibly be, all the time, but that the totality of man's being has been affected by sin. This includes his body, soul, mind, will, etc.

You might ask now, what are the consequences of our entire person being affected by sin? The Belgic Confession tells us of "Man and his incapability of doing what is truly good" (Art. 14) as a result of our inherited sinful nature from the fall of man. The affects of this sinful nature are three fold; it prevents man from being able to do what is truly good, being able to understand what is truly good, and even desiring what is truly good.

But first, what is truly good? Non-Christians all over the world donate thousands to charities, find cures for serious illnesses, and desire only the best for everyone they know, arenât these things truly good?

The Hiedelberg Catechism asks (Q&A 91) "But what are good works?
Only those that are done out of true faith, (Jn 15:5, Rom 14:23, Heb 11:6)
in accordance with the law of God, (Lev 18:4, 1 Sam 15:22, Eph 2:10)
and to his Glory.(1 Cor. 10:31)
Not those based on our own opinion,
or on the precepts of man." (Deut 12:32, Matt 15:7-9)

The Catechism says that three criteria make up what is truly good: true faith, conformity to the law of God, and a proper motive. A relatively good work (like the examples given above) may have the correct outward form, but not be done from true faith or to the glory of God. Thus, they are not, and cannot be, 'truly' good works.

As stated above, not only is the unregenerate man unable to do what is good, he is not even able to understand what is truly good. Lydia, for example, listened to Paul preach in Phillipi, but it was only after "the Lord opened her heart" that she was able to comprehend what Paul was saying (Acts 16:14). Until that point her understanding was darkened (Eph. 4:18), and a veil over her heart prevented her from seeing the truth ( 2 Cor. 3:12-18). But as soon as God opened her spiritual heart, she could respond to Paul.

Another example of man's inability to understand the good comes from Jesus' own ministry, and how the Jews rejected him. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." (John 1:11). Jesus performed miracles and preached to the Jews, but they continued to blaspheme him. Jesus asked them, "Why don't you understand what I say?", then proceeded to provide the answer, "because you are not able to hear my word" (John 8:43). Clearly the Jews could hear Jesus with their physical ears, but Jesus was speaking of their spiritual ears, as he said elsewhere, "By hearing you will hear but never understand, and seeing you will see but ever perceive" (Matt. 13:14). The cause of rejection and lack of understanding was not in Jesus' words, but rather, in the hardness of the Jews hearts. If the Holy Spirit does not first regenerate a man, there heart will remain hardened, and they will not understand the good.

Not only are non-Christians unable to do or understand what is truly good, they are not even able to desire what is truly good. This is the core of total depravity. Man does not only have no desire for what is truly good, but he hates the good and its source, namely, God. This inability to desire the good, and especially Jesus Christ, is expressed in one of Jesus' many 'cannot' statements. He says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), shortly after this he repeats the same thought in different words, "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father". Here is total depravity: man cannot choose Jesus. Nor can he even take the first step unless drawn by the Father.

The clearest evidence that man cannot even desire the good is found in every Biblical illustration of the effect of the initial work of the Holy Spirit. For example, in the OT, the unregenerate are described as having a "heart of stone" (Ezek. 11:19). A stone heart has no life, nor liberty, it can do nothing and will certainly not desire righteousness. However, God says that he will regenerate his people, and will give them a "heart of flesh". Only at that point of regeneration are they able to follow God.

Another example can be found in John 3:3 when Jesus uses the analogy of birth: "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God". I think we can agree that a baby never desires or decides to be born. He contributes nothing to his birth. In fact, he is completely passive from the time of conception to birth. In the same way, an unbeliever cannot contribute or take one step towards his rebirth.

But Calvin did not teach merely this. In the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion, ' he states that man is SO depraved that his every action would be evil ALL the time, if it were not for God restraining him just enough to keep man's evil actions from totally destroying everything:

Book 2 Chapter 3, Paragraph 3:

'In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things.'

Predestination in Calvin's teaching was quite independent of any human exertion or co-operation, for 'the will is so wholly vitiated and depraved that it is incapable of producing anything but evil.' For fallen man, therefore, the question is not how he can obtain forgiveness and remission of his sins, but rather how 'though unworthy and unrighteous, we may yet be considered righteous.' Through faith each one does not 'receive' God's favor-which is all that Calvin means by grace-but instead be "perceives" that he already has it. This, however, in no way prevents the predestined person from sinning constantly. The only remedy for this distressing situation is complete abandonment to the confidence that God will not exact the full rigor of the death sentence to which the predestined are liable at every moment.

This, to me, says that man is absolutely depraved, and if the type of total depravity Calvin meant to teach was that stated above, then he failed to do so. He states that, instead of causing concupiscence, original sin cause man to be totally in opposition to the will of God in everything he or she does, unless coerced (not given grace) by God to do otherwise.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes concupiscence. This doctrine teaches that man is inclined to sin, and this is a result of sin, but is not sin itself. It is temptation. And remember, Christ was tempted (being human) but NEVER sinned. So these cannot then be the same thing, unless you would say Christ sinned merely by being tempted by Satan, etc.

CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church):

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

Things man does ARE truly good, if they are in line with the will of God. These good deeds alone do little to avail salvation, and these are done with the grace of God, being that nothing good can be done outside His grace. Calvin taught that everything a man does, if judged on its own merits, is deserving of Hell. This is an extremist and non-Biblical position to the far right of the Palagian and semipalagian heresies, as noted above.

Of course, in refuting the palagian and semi palagian heresies, the Church affirms that grace must be given before any good works of merit, and given without even the foreseen works of merit (by the man), but that works done in this grace are truly good in the eyes of the Lord, since the man still freely co-operates WITH the grace to do the good that the grace allows him to do.

Most importantly, a better understanding of Romans 7, I think, supports the Catholic doctrine of Concupiscence, and this one doctrine, if understood correctly, erases the doctrine of man's total depravity.

Matt, it does not matter, and has no bearing whatsoever on this debate as to what you believe Calvin taught. The Five points of Calvinism, as I presented to you, were not even developed by Calvin (because he was dead). The 5 points were developed by the Synod of Dort in response to the Remonstrants (Arminians). They (those who participated in the synod) called the system of theology "Calvinism" only because they wanted to give recoginition to John Calvin for his efforts in Reforming the Church. In short, the theology we are discussing did not belong exclusively and was not articulated exclusively by John Calvin.

Again, the teachings of Calvinism we are debating (the 5 points) are not based upon the teachings of one man (as you make them out to be), but of all the Reformers, and all of those who attended and participated in the Synod of Dort. With that said, I see no need whatsoever to respond to your "charges" against John Calvin. On top of all that, the resolution to this debate is "is Calvinism Biblical"! It's not "What does Matt have to say about John Calvin" or "what is the Catholic doctrine of Concupiscence".

Seeing how you built your entire rebuttle around a quote from John Calvin, and then tried to tell me what I really believe, I don't see this debate (as of right now) being worthwhile. Here's the deal, in my post on Total Depravity, I made three claims and supported them with scripture. Those were: Man cannot do the good, man cannot understand the good and man cannot desire the good. How about you respond to those claims of mine with scripture, then we can continue.

The simple answer is this...I will not debate one heresy, under the imposed restrictions of another heresy (that of sola Scriptura). If I agreed to enter a debate that is based of the (heretical) doctrine of sola Scriptura, I was unaware I was doing so, and will thus withdraw. Also, I include, as Scripture, 7 books from the Old Testament that you perhaps do not. Would I thus be limited to arguing from what YOU see as Scripture, and not from what I see as Scripture? So yes, if I must debate under heretical (in my view) rules, then I will withdraw, not because I could not still demonstrate that Calvinism is unbiblical, but because it would border on heresy for me to agree to such, as if agreeing to these precepts(sola Scriptura, an abridged canon, etc).

Out of respect, however, for the debate you wish to have, may I suggest you find a debator that agrees with the other (in my opinion heretical) doctrines that you hold, and debate with that person. I look forward to seeing the outcome of THAT debate, out of curiousity.

God Bless,

Matt Menking

SSG Matt, Siege Engine Juggernaut of DestructionWrote:
The simple answer is this...I will not debate one heresy, under the imposed restrictions of another heresy (that of sola Scriptura). If I agreed to enter a debate that is based of the (heretical) doctrine of sola Scriptura, I was unaware I was doing so, and will thus withdraw. Also, I include, as Scripture, 7 books from the Old Testament that you perhaps do not. Would I thus be limited to arguing from what YOU see as Scripture, and not from what I see as Scripture? So yes, if I must debate under heretical (in my view) rules, then I will withdraw, not because I could not still demonstrate that Calvinism is unbiblical, but because it would border on heresy for me to agree to such, as if agreeing to these precepts(sola Scriptura, an abridged canon, etc).



Out of respect, however, for the debate you wish to have, may I suggest you find a debator that agrees with the other (in my opinion heretical) doctrines that you hold, and debate with that person. I look forward to seeing the outcome of THAT debate, out of curiousity.



God Bless,



Matt Menking

What are you even talking about? Read what you just wrote and compare it to the resolution of the debate and the posts I have made, you're making no sense whatsoever. When did I ever mention anything about sola scriptura? (or anything you just mentioned for that matter?) For all I care you can use the apocrypha all you want! The resolution to this debate could not be any more simple, and it is one that Protestants and Catholics have been engaging in for hundreds of years (there goes your excuse!), are the five points taught in scripture? Can it be any simpler than that? If they are not, I would atleast expect you would be able to muster at least one tangible argument from scripture against total depravity without saying, "ohh... BUT sola scriptura!11!1". Your withdrawl (without any good reason) tells me (and probably all those who are reading the debate) nothing more than you're insisting that scripture contradicts Catholic tradition. If you can't use scripture to provide an argument for your faith, what else am I to think?

jevanWrote:

[t]SSG Matt, Siege Engine Juggernaut of DestructionWrote:
The simple answer is this...I will not debate one heresy, under the imposed restrictions of another heresy (that of sola Scriptura). If I agreed to enter a debate that is based of the (heretical) doctrine of sola Scriptura, I was unaware I was doing so, and will thus withdraw. Also, I include, as Scripture, 7 books from the Old Testament that you perhaps do not. Would I thus be limited to arguing from what YOU see as Scripture, and not from what I see as Scripture? So yes, if I must debate under heretical (in my view) rules, then I will withdraw, not because I could not still demonstrate that Calvinism is unbiblical, but because it would border on heresy for me to agree to such, as if agreeing to these precepts(sola Scriptura, an abridged canon, etc).



Out of respect, however, for the debate you wish to have, may I suggest you find a debator that agrees with the other (in my opinion heretical) doctrines that you hold, and debate with that person. I look forward to seeing the outcome of THAT debate, out of curiousity.



God Bless,



Matt Menking

[/t]


What are you even talking about? Read what you just wrote and compare it to the resolution of the debate and the posts I have made, you're making no sense whatsoever. When did I ever mention anything about sola scriptura? (or anything you just mentioned for that matter?) For all I care you can use the apocrypha all you want! The resolution to this debate could not be any more simple, and it is one that Protestants and Catholics have been engaging in for hundreds of years (there goes your excuse!), are the five points taught in scripture? Can it be any simpler than that? If they are not, I would atleast expect you would be able to muster at least one tangible argument from scripture against total depravity without saying, "ohh... BUT sola scriptura!11!1". Your withdrawl (without any good reason) tells me (and probably all those who are reading the debate) nothing more than you're insisting that scripture contradicts Catholic tradition. If you can't use scripture to provide an argument for your faith, what else am I to think?

you might try actually reading my post, and the posts on the comment thread as well....

its simple, by the way, with Scripture

"God wills that ALL be saved" and in no way does Calvinism reconcile this fact, taught throughout Scripture

can the five points be wrongly seen in Scripture with a superficial understanding of Scripture, then absolutely...but NO, Cavinism is NOT taught in Scripture...

God Bless,

Matt Menking

So it is up to you, i guess, to demonstrate how God's will to save ALL can be honestly and truly reconciled with Calvinism (that some are made, from the beginning, purely for damnation)

Oh wow, I've never seen that text before! Here are some others you can use against me , too. John 1:9; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 4:14.

Since you've already withdrawn, I'll let St. Augustine answer you :-p.

Chapter 44.-In What Way God Wills All Men to Be Saved.

And what is written, that "He wills all men' to be saved, "154 while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings155 of mine; but here I will say one thing: "He wills all men to be saved, " is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, "Ye tithe every herb;"156 where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, "Even as I also please all men in all things."157 For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it. (On Rebuke and Grace)

In short, phrases like âthe world, â âall men, â âall nations, â and âevery creatureâ are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (he died for Jews and Gentiles alike), but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (he did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

jevanWrote:
Oh wow, I've never seen that text before! Here are some others you can use against me , too. John 1:9; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 4:14.



Since you've already withdrawn, I'll let St. Augustine answer you :-p.



Chapter 44.-In What Way God Wills All Men to Be Saved.



And what is written, that "He wills all men' to be saved, "154 while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings155 of mine; but here I will say one thing: "He wills all men to be saved, " is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, "Ye tithe every herb;"156 where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, "Even as I also please all men in all things."157 For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it. (On Rebuke and Grace)



In short, phrases like â´¨e world, â¢all men, â¢all nations, â¡nd ⥶ery creatureâ¡re intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (he died for Jews and Gentiles alike), but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (he did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

According to your rules, you cant let Augustine answer me, it has to be straight from Scripture. (you like to impose rules on me, but dont mind breaking them for your arguments...not very honest, or Christian, i might add)

So you not only misunderstand Scripture, but Augustine as well....and you must actually give some real evidence that the ALL is meant in the way you say it is. How convenient that "all" is meant in the way you claim when it concerns salvation, but the same "all" happens to be an all inclusive "all" when it says that "all men have sinned" or "none" is righteous.

You cant have it both ways...pick a meaning for "all" and stick with it, or show beyond doubt the the context of each "all" works in the way you say

SSG Matt, Siege Engine Juggernaut of DestructionWrote:

[t]jevanWrote:
Oh wow, I've never seen that text before! Here are some others you can use against me , too. John 1:9; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 4:14.



Since you've already withdrawn, I'll let St. Augustine answer you :-p.



Chapter 44.-In What Way God Wills All Men to Be Saved.



And what is written, that "He wills all men' to be saved, "154 while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings155 of mine; but here I will say one thing: "He wills all men to be saved, " is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, "Ye tithe every herb;"156 where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, "Even as I also please all men in all things."157 For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it. (On Rebuke and Grace)



In short, phrases like ⴨e world, �all men, �all nations, �nd ⥶ery creature�re intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (he died for Jews and Gentiles alike), but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (he did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

[/t]


According to your rules, you cant let Augustine answer me, it has to be straight from Scripture. (you like to impose rules on me, but dont mind breaking them for your arguments...not very honest, or Christian, i might add)

So you not only misunderstand Scripture, but Augustine as well....and you must actually give some real evidence that the ALL is meant in the way you say it is. How convenient that "all" is meant in the way you claim when it concerns salvation, but the same "all" happens to be an all inclusive "all" when it says that "all men have sinned" or "none" is righteous.

You cant have it both ways...pick a meaning for "all" and stick with it, or show beyond doubt the the context of each "all" works in the way you say

According to you, you quit this debate. Does the debate no longer "border on heresy" for you? I don't know, but usually when someone backs out of a debate, the debate is over. So stop wasting everyones time. If you want to continue the debate, respond to my post on Total Depravity.

jevanWrote:

[t]SSG Matt, Siege Engine Juggernaut of DestructionWrote:

[t]jevanWrote:
Oh wow, I've never seen that text before! Here are some others you can use against me , too. John 1:9; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 4:14.



Since you've already withdrawn, I'll let St. Augustine answer you :-p.



Chapter 44.-In What Way God Wills All Men to Be Saved.



And what is written, that "He wills all men' to be saved, "154 while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings155 of mine; but here I will say one thing: "He wills all men to be saved, " is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. Just as it was said to the Pharisees, "Ye tithe every herb;"156 where the expression is only to be understood of every herb that they had, for they did not tithe every herb which was found throughout the whole earth. According to the same manner of speaking, it was said, "Even as I also please all men in all things."157 For did he who said this please also the multitude of his persecutors? But he pleased every kind of men that assembled in the Church of Christ, whether they were already established therein, or were to be introduced into it. (On Rebuke and Grace)



In short, phrases like ⴨e world, �all men, �all nations, �nd ⥶ery creature�re intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (he died for Jews and Gentiles alike), but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (he did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

[/t]


According to your rules, you cant let Augustine answer me, it has to be straight from Scripture. (you like to impose rules on me, but dont mind breaking them for your arguments...not very honest, or Christian, i might add)

So you not only misunderstand Scripture, but Augustine as well....and you must actually give some real evidence that the ALL is meant in the way you say it is. How convenient that "all" is meant in the way you claim when it concerns salvation, but the same "all" happens to be an all inclusive "all" when it says that "all men have sinned" or "none" is righteous.

You cant have it both ways...pick a meaning for "all" and stick with it, or show beyond doubt the the context of each "all" works in the way you say[/t]


According to you, you quit this debate. Does the debate no longer "border on heresy" for you? I don't know, but usually when someone backs out of a debate, the debate is over. So stop wasting everyones time. If you want to continue the debate, respond to my post on Total Depravity.

If I could see even a hint of Christian charity in you, which so far in this debate there is none (contrarywise, I end each post with "God Bless" and speak respectfully) then I will consider continuing this debate, which, to my knowledge, was suppose to be between two Christians, not just by title, but in reality.

Also, I did respond, and you refuse to refute my response. If it is refutable, do so...otherwise, concede.

God Bless,

Matt Menking

There is no need for a response on my part, as it stands now you have yet to demonstrate how man can even desire salvation (see my post on total depravity). If Total Depravity is true, all of the other points follow. Also, I do not believe I have been coming on as harsh, and if I have made any disrespectful or ad hom remarks, please quote me and I will apologize.

You, on the other hand, have called me a heretic and my theology heretical more times than I can count, but that's ok, because you follow it all up with "God Bless".

My response, once again, to total depravity....honestly refute the post, instead of trying to say it doesnt fit the rules....refute it, or call off the debate by conceding

SSG Matt, Siege Engine Juggernaut of DestructionWrote:
But Calvin did not teach merely this. In the 'Institutes of the Christian Religion, ' he states that man is SO depraved that his every action would be evil ALL the time, if it were not for God restraining him just enough to keep man's evil actions from totally destroying everything:



Book 2 Chapter 3, Paragraph 3:



'In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things.'



Predestination in Calvin's teaching was quite independent of any human exertion or co-operation, for 'the will is so wholly vitiated and depraved that it is incapable of producing anything but evil.' For fallen man, therefore, the question is not how he can obtain forgiveness and remission of his sins, but rather how 'though unworthy and unrighteous, we may yet be considered righteous.' Through faith each one does not 'receive' God's favor-which is all that Calvin means by grace-but instead be "perceives" that he already has it. This, however, in no way prevents the predestined person from sinning constantly. The only remedy for this distressing situation is complete abandonment to the confidence that God will not exact the full rigor of the death sentence to which the predestined are liable at every moment.



This, to me, says that man is absolutely depraved, and if the type of total depravity Calvin meant to teach was that stated above, then he failed to do so. He states that, instead of causing concupiscence, original sin cause man to be totally in opposition to the will of God in everything he or she does, unless coerced (not given grace) by God to do otherwise.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes concupiscence. This doctrine teaches that man is inclined to sin, and this is a result of sin, but is not sin itself. It is temptation. And remember, Christ was tempted (being human) but NEVER sinned. So these cannot then be the same thing, unless you would say Christ sinned merely by being tempted by Satan, etc.



CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church):



405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.



406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).



Things man does ARE truly good, if they are in line with the will of God. These good deeds alone do little to avail salvation, and these are done with the grace of God, being that nothing good can be done outside His grace. Calvin taught that everything a man does, if judged on its own merits, is deserving of Hell. This is an extremist and non-Biblical position to the far right of the Palagian and semipalagian heresies, as noted above.



Of course, in refuting the palagian and semi palagian heresies, the Church affirms that grace must be given before any good works of merit, and given without even the foreseen works of merit (by the man), but that works done in this grace are truly good in the eyes of the Lord, since the man still freely co-operates WITH the grace to do the good that the grace allows him to do.



Most importantly, a better understanding of Romans 7, I think, supports the Catholic doctrine of Concupiscence, and this one doctrine, if understood correctly, erases the doctrine of man's total depravity.

The theory of total depravity holds that when Adam and Eve sinned and fell, our human nature was left in a state of complete corruption; we can do nothing towards our own salvation. As Catholics, we believe that it is God's grace that first moves us to conversion rather than any action or merit of our own. But we part company with Calvin on the next point: our response. We are free to accept or reject God's gift of grace, and our acceptance or rejection affects all of our actions that follow.

This brings us to Calvin's theory of double predestination, which teaches that God has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned. If double predestination is true, there is no room for a genuinely free will as regards our actions and choices.

Those who study Calvinist beliefs in an objective fashion might well ask, "If our fate is sealed, what difference do our actions make? Does it matter if we go to church, or evangelize, or follow the Commandments or ignore them? What difference does it make if we contracept? If we have no control over our actions, but are merely puppets performing the drama of God's grace, then don't our actions become meaningless?"

So my, or your, or anyones acceptance of the doctrine of total depravity is meaningless as well. Is accepting the doctrine of total depravity a sign of the elect? Since virtually no one accepted or even thought of this doctrine for the first 1500 years of Christianity, does that mean that almost no one was saved (among the elect)? Is professing belief in total depravity necessary for salvation? Basically, total depravity does, as you will agree, lead to total bondage of the will and us being puppets of God completely...and in that case, we should ignore this, and proceed 'as if' we have free will. Otherwise, every action can said to be because 'God made me do it, ' including each post of mine and yours, and ALL of this is irrelevant.

So is this all just God playing games between you and I, and all that support and/or argue against Calvinism? Or do we have free will, and a free ability to seek truth, and THAT is what we are doing? If not, then I guess we will see what God has me type next, and whatever it is, it will only be because God made me do it....according to the logical conclusion of the Calvinist theory.

God Bless,

Matt