A debate with a Calvinist

[Catholic_Dude]

I’d like to see you against James White. Maybe he will have a real challange this time!

White has become neutralized and irrelevant by modern Catholic apologetics. That’s why you’ll not see him interacting with places like www.CalledToCommunion.com and that’s why you see more and more ex-Calvinists making well informed decisions to convert to Catholicism while you see nobody leaving Catholicism for Calvinism with a well-reasoned testimony. Proof is in the pudding.

Furthermore, White cannot handle the simplest of exegesis of key texts like 2 Corinthians 5:21. HERE is a good example of what Protestants (especially Calvinists) face when looking at such verses.

 

[MichaelP3]

In the Protestant mind, works alone are what save. Not faith, not grace. In the Protestant mind, Adam was to be saved by living a life of perfect obedience (i.e. works alone), but since he fell into sin and so did we, man was no longer able to live a life of perfect obedience. The Protestant “solution” is that Jesus came in order to live a life of perfect obedience in our place and impute this to us, such that when we stand before God, He sees us as if we lived a life of flawless good works, and on this basis God “justifies” us. In other words, works alone save us, the Protestants are just sneaky by saying Jesus did those works for us. This is why Protestants always ask you, “How do you know you’re GOOD ENOUGH to get into heaven?” because they believe perfect lifetime of works is what gets us into Heaven, and they’re expecting you to try and claim you’re good enough

Okay it is late and I will reply when I can.

The part quoted just bugged me somewhat. And I mean this in the nicest way possible but you really do not understand much. I am not sure if that is on purpose to detract a Protestants or for some other reason but you will be very hard pressed to find a Catholic who ever heard of this viewpoint (maybe not, I have been wrong here) let alone a Protestant who has ever heard of this? Really! This is quite a concern!

Works alone and Protestant in the same sentence! Never saw that one coming! Start a thread against " Protestant believing in works alone" and see where that goes!

But anyway. For now, rather read up on Luther and Calvin for the time being. You don’t need to agree, you just need to know what you are debating. I can assure you, no Calvinist or Protestant will go to their knees here on what you are implying. They will be utterly confused what you are actually saying.

Regards

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The part quoted just bugged me somewhat. And I mean this in the nicest way possible but you really do not understand much. I am not sure if that is on purpose to detract a Protestants or for some other reason but you will be very hard pressed to find a Catholic who ever heard of this viewpoint (maybe not, I have been wrong here) let alone a Protestant who has ever heard of this?

Works alone and Protestant in the same sentence! Never saw that one coming!

But anyway. For now, rather read up on Luther and Calvin for the time being. You don’t need to agree, you just need to know what you are debating. I can assure you, no Calvinist or Protestant will go to their knees here on what you are implying.

You just have to let it sink in buddy. I know it’s unexpected, and you should be shocked. But let it sink in. The Bible is a Catholic book given by God, so it is impossible for the Bible to teach non-Catholic doctrines. Period.

Think about why Protestants believe in “the Imputation of Christs Righteousness”…because we “aren’t good enough”. That’s a works-based-salvation viewpoint, not a Catholic mindset at all. In fact, Protestants have dug in so far that they teach Jesus was damned to hellfire in our place - and the great Protestant theologians including Luther and Calvin clearly teach it - that since we deserve hellfire for our sins, Jesus had to take that punishment in our place. See THESE QUOTES from Luther, Calvin, and many conservative theologians.

From one of the most popular conservative Protestant Apologetics sites:
Question: “Why does Christ’s righteousness need to be imputed to us?”
Answer: In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uttered these words: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). … At this point, the natural response is “But I can’t be perfect,” which is absolutely true. … The truth of the matter is that, on our own and by our own efforts, we can’t possibly be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We don’t love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We don’t love our neighbors as ourselves. We have a problem, and it’s called sin. … Our own righteousness is simply not good enough and never will be, no matter how hard we try. That’s why Jesus lived a perfect life in full obedience to the law of God in thought, word, and deed. Jesus’ mission wasn’t simply to die on the cross for our sins but also to live a life of perfect righteousness.

You’re in for a fun ride when you ‘get it’, and I’m sure you will. Calvinism is the easiest of all Protestant views to refute, if you know how. They fall like a house of cards with the right puff of wind. Ask a Calvinist where the Bible says Jesus lived a life of perfect obedience IN OUR PLACE and watch the fireworks as they go onto flounder and fluster and not come up with a single CLEAR VERSE saying such. That’s how easy it is to take down a Calvinist. And I’m not kidding. Don’t ever think they actually know the Bible.

 

[Vonsalza]

Catholic_Dude:

Yeah, most Catholics don’t realize it, but if you know what to say, you can bring any Calvinist you want to their knees with a few great questions.

I’d like to see you against James White. Maybe he will have a real challange this time!

Seriously. Watch James White v. Trent Horn (Catholic).

Trent stomped him so completely that he felt compelled to issue a “response video” (or something like that) shortly after the end of the debate.

Rhetoricians don’t do stuff like that unless they’re in “damage control” mode.

I’m not saying that as a Catholic. Objectively, Trent put it on him pretty solidly.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am sometimes affraid that I might actually not be debating well enough.

The lance can always be a bit sharper… A bit better couched… Maybe a little better aimed…

So work on them when you can. But don’t use it as an excuse to stay off the “lists” in the meantime. Fight them where you are and if you “lose”, learn why. And maybe, juuuust maybe consider that your foe may have a better argument.

Which is why I’m Catholic.

 

[De_Maria]

Any suggestions to stump Calvinists or to rather humble them in their haughty arrogance??

When I meet people like that, I keep in mind that I probably can’t stump him or change his mind. But, I reply for the sake of the reader, because there are people lurking out there who will learn from your exchange.

So, what I would say to this fellow, is simple.

Scripture says God wills all men be saved.
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I believe Scripture. You believe Calvin.

I hope that helps.

 

[EricF]

In my experience, debating with Calvinists is a lot like debating my deaf, overweight, flatulent beagle. They get plenty excited but that’s about it.

 

[MichaelP3]

Okay I can check some of your posts now. I do think it will take many more posts to even attend to the ones you already posted.

Calvinists say that free will is a myth. They say free will by its very nature is incompatible with God’s sovereignty and predestination. The simple fact that Jesus had free will (as well as Adam and Eve) pretty much contradicts that claim.

So, the first very important FACT in this would be that you don’t know what Calvinism is if you make this claim. This is very important. “A slave to sin”. This is an important fact! You are using the people who didn’t start of with this! So I don’t see the argument. Any Calvinist would say “yep, you are getting there when you use Jesus or Adam and Eve”.

This part would make any Calvinist wonder if you are arguing against Calvinism or what you think it is. Maybe they will turn around and walk away, but absolutely no knee bending or fireworks! Just " Who is this guy?" as they start to wonder what’s for dinner!

In other words, Calvin says Jesus forgot why He was sent and turned his prayer of “take this cup from me” into a more or less selfish request, made without reflection, and that He quickly retracted his prayer (despite the fact the Gospels say Jesus prayed this three times total!).

So you just used Jesus as having free will as a “refutation” of Calvinism" and then you quote Calvin apparently saying Jesus had free will? Not sure I am getting you here?

Calvinism is 100% Pelagian, works-based

This is where you will get the strangest looks. Really, it sounds like in kindergarten when toddlers say “no, you are!!”. How many times have Catholics been accused of being work based (Which is not my opinion totally) but here you come and say “no, you are work based”.

I would really like you to elaborate on this. As in really, please try. You take the one denomination that could probably think the worst serial killer on this earth could go to heaven by the mere fact that he was Predestined and you want to argue it is works based? You seem really confused. And please, explain in totality of Calvinism. I checked your Blog you have and you seem to have some real beef with Calvinists?

IN OUR PLACE and watch the fireworks as they go onto flounder and fluster and not come up with a single CLEAR VERSE saying such. That’s how easy it is to take down a Calvinist. And I’m not kidding. Don’t ever think they actually know the Bible.

Also, this kind of rhetoric doesn’t do much. Best case scenario a person will attempt to chat. Reality is, they will decide they have a job and a family and actually needs to live their life and when they have time, they will talk to respectable people who actually talk back and seems like they listened in some way. Walking away thinking you “won” actually doesn’t mean much then.

Rather leave the poetics in this one please?

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Seriously. Watch James White v. Trent Horn (Catholic).

Trent stomped him so completely that he felt compelled to issue a “response video” (or something like that) shortly after the end of the debate.

Rhetoricians don’t do stuff like that unless they’re in “damage control” mode.

I’m not saying that as a Catholic. Objectively, Trent put it on him pretty solidly.

Yea I did not even a day after it was released. Trent did okay although his very last phrase spoken will live on in my memories…

I also checked the response video. Have you? They guy runs his own personal youtube channel thing. I’d be surprise if he didn’t bring it up?

But I’m very glad you rather brought this one up, the other alternative could have been Sungenis ???

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Seriously. Watch James White v. Trent Horn (Catholic).

Trent stomped him so completely that he felt compelled to issue a “response video” (or something like that) shortly after the end of the debate.

Rhetoricians don’t do stuff like that unless they’re in “damage control” mode.

I’m not saying that as a Catholic. Objectively, Trent put it on him pretty solidly.

Yea I did not even a day after it was released. Trent did okay although his very last phrase spoken will live on in my memories…

Which was?

I also checked the response video. Have you? They guy runs his own personal youtube channel thing. I’d be surprise if he didn’t bring it up?

Fair enough! But it would seem that doing another video in a few days would be very prolific. Immediately after? Damage control, by my judgement.

But I’m very glad you rather brought this one up, the other alternative could have been Sungenis ???

Indeed. Not all apologists are created equal, I’m sure we agree.

 

[MichaelP3]

Which was?

I’m trying to remember now but something like “you need to conform your thinking/views to the Bible and not that the Bible needs to conform to your thinking/views” One can correct me with the exact phrase! I just remember how White went home with that afterwards.

I won’t say that was Trent’s actual point, rather he got flustered and panicked for some reason.

Fair enough! But it would seem that doing another video in a few days would be very prolific. Immediately after? Damage control, by my judgement.

Maybe. I wouldn’t know. But check his youtubes. He addressed the upcoming debate a day or two before it on that show, I am really not surprised on his next scheduled one he went through it. The guy likes to talk.

Indeed. Not all apologists are created equal, I’m sure we agree.

True that! The Trent one is probably the best out there. Robert Fastiggi had a few good goes and I have a lot of respect for Fr. Pacwa. (I have watched them all)

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

has defined exactly 5 verses in 2k years

Is this actually true?

 

[MT1926]

has defined exactly 5 verses in 2k years

Is this actually true?

Yes it is, although it might be 7? The Catholic Church believes many verses of scripture can have multiple levels of meaning. Therefore, it does not bind on earth what a particular passage of scripture means unless it was divinely revealed to her. The Church often tends to tell faithful Catholics they are free to interpret scripture, on their own, as long as they don’t interpret it in such a way that it is contrary to Her teachings on faith and morals. So quite often the Church will tell us what a verse can’t mean before she will bind us with one particular meaning.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I’m trying to remember now but something like “you need to conform your thinking/views to the Bible and not that the Bible needs to conform to your thinking/views” One can correct me with the exact phrase! I just remember how White went home with that afterwards.

I won’t say that was Trent’s actual point, rather he got flustered and panicked for some reason.

I think he said our theology should come from the Bible not read our theology into the Bible. He was saying this in response to JW’s claim that all of Jesus’ prescriptive texts, telling us what a Christian must do, are actually descriptive texts of what a saved person will do.

For instance Jesus says Matthew 19:17 If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.

James says what Jesus means here is the elected who are already saved “WILL” keep the commandments. How did he get that from the text? No where in the entire Chapter does Jesus tell us he is telling us this is what the predestined do. On the contrary he tells his disciples “Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why? If what a rich person does with their money has no bearing on salvation why is it difficult for a rich person to be saved?

What Trent should have said was, for someone who adheres to sola scriptura, shouldn’t your theology come from the Bible instead of reading your theology into the Bible. Because, I have yet to see a Biblical explanation of how Jesus is describing a good Christian instead of telling us what we need to do to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Don’t get me wrong James can talk a good talk, but just try to ask him to explain or how he comes to the conclusions he makes and he will belittle you to no end. He also tends to contradict himself when he counters many arguments by setting some arbitrary rule that he himself breaks over and over.

I could go on but I think you can tell that I too am no fan of JW. I don’t know the man personally, he’s just a bit to arrogant for my tastes and quite a few of his arguments make no sense.

God Bless

 

[Catholic_Dude]

MichaelP3,

Can you explain to me what the Active Obedience of Christ is and why it is needed for justification? And can you tell me the top three passages the Reformed appeal to for the AOC? I ask this because I think it is at the heart of why we are misunderstanding each other, as well as why the charge of Pelagianism is genuinely applied to Calvinism/Lutheranism.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Michael,
I can totally understand why you’re shocked to hear that Calvinism is based on Pelagianism. Here is a good treatment of the matter from a well respected Catholic site:

Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark | Called to Communion

On September 21, Professor Lawrence Feingold of Ave Maria University's Institute for Pastoral Theology and author of The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and his Interpreters gave a lecture titled "The Natural Desire to See God and Man's Supernatural End" to the Association of...

www.calledtocommunion.com