Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate

Theo1689

Well-known member
I'm about an hour and a half into a Calvinism-Arminianism debate, between RA Fuentes (Arminian) and John Myers (Calvinist). You can find it on YouTube on RA Fuentes' Apologetics account.

So far, the Arminian side has done abysmally.

One of the debate rules was "Scripture only, no rationalizations". Yet Fuentes used rationalization after rationalization.

One of the debate rules was in the cross-ex, your first response has to be "yes" or "no", after which you can elaborate. I think this is a stupid rule, since an immediate "yes" or "no" without explaining is going to result in knee-jerk reactions of emotionalism.

The debate topic was, "Is Calvinism demonic and heretical?" Not just, "Is Calvinism false and unBiblical", but "demonic and heretical". Such emotionalism. And as John rightly pointed out, the Arminian refused to distinguish what made a teaching "heretical" or "demonic", and not simply "false".

One of the Arminian's arguments was, "Calvinists have to twist Scripture". But this simply begs the question, if two people interpret Scripture in different ways, WHO is the one who is "twisting" it? It begs the question. And can someone hold an alternative view of Scripture without "twisting" it?

One of the Arminian's arguments was that Calvinism preaches a false gospel because it doesn't proclaim universal atonement, that Christ died for everyone. But when John pointing out that RA hadn't demonstrated from Scripture that Christ died for everyong, RA ran away and said, "the debate isn't about my beliefs, it's about Calvinism, so I don't have to prove anything". So how is that a valid argument against Calvinism if he not only hasn't proven it, but claims he doesn't HAVE to?

John is 20 years old, and has the precision and eloquence of a 40-50 year-old. Kudos to him. RA Fuentes is apparently a pastor, but he sounds like a 15-year-old, and doesn't seem to understand basic logic. I tried to see if I could find out RA Fuentes' age, I couldn't. But I did find another debate by him affirming the assertion, "Calvinism is worthless and dangerous". A little too emotional for my tastes.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
I'm about an hour and a half into a Calvinism-Arminianism debate, between RA Fuentes (Arminian) and John Myers (Calvinist). You can find it on YouTube on RA Fuentes' Apologetics account.

So far, the Arminian side has done abysmally.

One of the debate rules was "Scripture only, no rationalizations". Yet Fuentes used rationalization after rationalization.

One of the debate rules was in the cross-ex, your first response has to be "yes" or "no", after which you can elaborate. I think this is a stupid rule, since an immediate "yes" or "no" without explaining is going to result in knee-jerk reactions of emotionalism.

The debate topic was, "Is Calvinism demonic and heretical?" Not just, "Is Calvinism false and unBiblical", but "demonic and heretical". Such emotionalism. And as John rightly pointed out, the Arminian refused to distinguish what made a teaching "heretical" or "demonic", and not simply "false".

One of the Arminian's arguments was, "Calvinists have to twist Scripture". But this simply begs the question, if two people interpret Scripture in different ways, WHO is the one who is "twisting" it? It begs the question. And can someone hold an alternative view of Scripture without "twisting" it?

One of the Arminian's arguments was that Calvinism preaches a false gospel because it doesn't proclaim universal atonement, that Christ died for everyone. But when John pointing out that RA hadn't demonstrated from Scripture that Christ died for everyong, RA ran away and said, "the debate isn't about my beliefs, it's about Calvinism, so I don't have to prove anything". So how is that a valid argument against Calvinism if he not only hasn't proven it, but claims he doesn't HAVE to?

John is 20 years old, and has the precision and eloquence of a 40-50 year-old. Kudos to him. RA Fuentes is apparently a pastor, but he sounds like a 15-year-old, and doesn't seem to understand basic logic. I tried to see if I could find out RA Fuentes' age, I couldn't. But I did find another debate by him affirming the assertion, "Calvinism is worthless and dangerous". A little too emotional for my tastes.

Who is the accuser?

Of course that could be followed up with with why are you accusing another of being the accuser.

Such is the debate.

But seriously .... Satan is the great accuser.
 
Last edited:

Dizerner

Well-known member
I've watched too many of these.

A couple favorites from memory is White - Brown and White - Gregg.

Honestly never seen one where either side was optimally presented.

Oh, Braxton Hunter vs Paul Cooper was kinda ok. Pretty sure Cooper actually left Calvinism after that too.
 

fltom

Well-known member
One of the Arminian's arguments was, "Calvinists have to twist Scripture". But this simply begs the question, if two people interpret Scripture in different ways, WHO is the one who is "twisting" it? It begs the question. And can someone hold an alternative view of Scripture without "twisting" it?

One of the Arminian's arguments was that Calvinism preaches a false gospel because it doesn't proclaim universal atonement, that Christ died for everyone. But when John pointing out that RA hadn't demonstrated from Scripture that Christ died for everyong, RA ran away and said, "the debate isn't about my beliefs, it's about Calvinism, so I don't have to prove anything". So how is that a valid argument against Calvinism if he not only hasn't proven it, but claims he doesn't HAVE to?




Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
1 Timothy 2:4–6
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
2 Corinthians 5:14–15
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
John 11:51
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2 Peter 3:9
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.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
I'm about an hour and a half into a Calvinism-Arminianism debate, between RA Fuentes (Arminian) and John Myers (Calvinist). You can find it on YouTube on RA Fuentes' Apologetics account.

So far, the Arminian side has done abysmally.

One of the debate rules was "Scripture only, no rationalizations". Yet Fuentes used rationalization after rationalization.

One of the debate rules was in the cross-ex, your first response has to be "yes" or "no", after which you can elaborate. I think this is a stupid rule, since an immediate "yes" or "no" without explaining is going to result in knee-jerk reactions of emotionalism.

The debate topic was, "Is Calvinism demonic and heretical?" Not just, "Is Calvinism false and unBiblical", but "demonic and heretical". Such emotionalism. And as John rightly pointed out, the Arminian refused to distinguish what made a teaching "heretical" or "demonic", and not simply "false".

One of the Arminian's arguments was, "Calvinists have to twist Scripture". But this simply begs the question, if two people interpret Scripture in different ways, WHO is the one who is "twisting" it? It begs the question. And can someone hold an alternative view of Scripture without "twisting" it?

One of the Arminian's arguments was that Calvinism preaches a false gospel because it doesn't proclaim universal atonement, that Christ died for everyone. But when John pointing out that RA hadn't demonstrated from Scripture that Christ died for everyong, RA ran away and said, "the debate isn't about my beliefs, it's about Calvinism, so I don't have to prove anything". So how is that a valid argument against Calvinism if he not only hasn't proven it, but claims he doesn't HAVE to?

John is 20 years old, and has the precision and eloquence of a 40-50 year-old. Kudos to him. RA Fuentes is apparently a pastor, but he sounds like a 15-year-old, and doesn't seem to understand basic logic. I tried to see if I could find out RA Fuentes' age, I couldn't. But I did find another debate by him affirming the assertion, "Calvinism is worthless and dangerous". A little too emotional for my tastes.
Going to listen. Thanks theo
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
1 Timothy 2:4–6
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
2 Corinthians 5:14–15
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
John 11:51
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2 Peter 3:9
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.
Cult like Proof texting
 

fltom

Well-known member
Cult like Proof texting
Which you cannot address so you term the bibles message cultic

 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Which you cannot address so you term the bibles message cultic

Nope. Just your cult like method of proof texting.
 

Synergy

Well-known member
I'm about an hour and a half into a Calvinism-Arminianism debate, between RA Fuentes (Arminian) and John Myers (Calvinist). You can find it on YouTube on RA Fuentes' Apologetics account.

So far, the Arminian side has done abysmally.

One of the debate rules was "Scripture only, no rationalizations". Yet Fuentes used rationalization after rationalization.

One of the debate rules was in the cross-ex, your first response has to be "yes" or "no", after which you can elaborate. I think this is a stupid rule, since an immediate "yes" or "no" without explaining is going to result in knee-jerk reactions of emotionalism.

The debate topic was, "Is Calvinism demonic and heretical?" Not just, "Is Calvinism false and unBiblical", but "demonic and heretical". Such emotionalism. And as John rightly pointed out, the Arminian refused to distinguish what made a teaching "heretical" or "demonic", and not simply "false".

One of the Arminian's arguments was, "Calvinists have to twist Scripture". But this simply begs the question, if two people interpret Scripture in different ways, WHO is the one who is "twisting" it? It begs the question. And can someone hold an alternative view of Scripture without "twisting" it?

One of the Arminian's arguments was that Calvinism preaches a false gospel because it doesn't proclaim universal atonement, that Christ died for everyone. But when John pointing out that RA hadn't demonstrated from Scripture that Christ died for everyong, RA ran away and said, "the debate isn't about my beliefs, it's about Calvinism, so I don't have to prove anything". So how is that a valid argument against Calvinism if he not only hasn't proven it, but claims he doesn't HAVE to?

John is 20 years old, and has the precision and eloquence of a 40-50 year-old. Kudos to him. RA Fuentes is apparently a pastor, but he sounds like a 15-year-old, and doesn't seem to understand basic logic. I tried to see if I could find out RA Fuentes' age, I couldn't. But I did find another debate by him affirming the assertion, "Calvinism is worthless and dangerous". A little too emotional for my tastes.
Even though I'm an Arminian, I find the title "Is Calvinism demonic and heretical?" very demeaning to Calvinists. Who in his right mind would agree to such a debate topic? I wouldn't even waste any of my time viewing any part of it.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Nope. Just your cult like method of proof texting.
You can't deal with the texts

just like most of the other Calvinists here

 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
You can't deal with the texts

just like most of the other Calvinists here

Typical cult like behavior. Agree with me or your wrong about everything. I, Tom, have it all figured out.
 

fltom

Well-known member
Typical cult like behavior. Agree with me or your wrong about everything. I, Tom, have it all figured out.
On your part

you all ignore that which is contrary to your theology

 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
On your part

you all ignore that which is contrary to your theology

Typical cult like behavior. Proof texting
 

fltom

Well-known member
Typical cult like behavior. Proof texting
Typical cult like behavior ignore what the bible stares in favor of your own theology

 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Typical cult like behavior ignore what the bible stares in favor of your own theology

He the precedes to engage in cult like behavior. LOL
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Lest someone think only the Arminians can be rude jerks, I invite you to watch the following debate:

 
Top