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.
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.
