Live Chat Discussion on Calvinism

[Matt Slick]

After reading some threads here and seeing some of the misrepresentations of the reformed perspective, I thought I would offer an opportunity for people to gather for a live chat discussion on Calvinism. I could set up a zoom or streamyard session and provide people with the opportunity to enter in and "argue" Calvinism. I've been defending it for about 30 years and would be willing to field questions, counter-arguments, and present information that I think would be helpful in the discussion.

If any of you are interested and would like to participate or at least watch it, please let me know here. I would be glad to set it up. All you need to do is just say you're interested in participating or watching... or, that you don't care...

I will be debating limited atonement this Saturday, October 24, 2020, 9PM EST, with Sam Shamoun. I'll be posting the link on carm's facebook page shortly before the event. So, after that discussion, if anyone is interested in participating in a live chat opportunity, I would be available to set it up. Again, please let me know here.

Thanks

 

[TomFL]

After reading some threads here and seeing some of the misrepresentations of the reformed perspective, I thought I would offer an opportunity for people to gather for a live chat discussion on Calvinism. I could set up a zoom or streamyard session and provide people with the opportunity to enter in and "argue" Calvinism. I've been defending it for about 30 years and would be willing to field questions, counter-arguments, and present information that I think would be helpful in the discussion.

If any of you are interested and would like to participate or at least watch it, please let me know here. I would be glad to set it up. All you need to do is just say you're interested in participating or watching... or, that you don't care...

I will be debating limited atonement this Saturday, October 24, 2020, 9PM EST, with Sam Shamoun. I'll be posting the link on carm's facebook page shortly before the event. So, after that discussion, if anyone is interested in participating in a live chat opportunity, I would be available to set it up. Again, please let me know here.

Thanks

Might I suggest you extend that invitation to Leighton Flowers

That should be interesting if he is available

 

[praise_yeshua]

Based upon schedule, I would like to attend. Thanks for the offer.

 

[Matt Slick]

TomFL, do you consider Leighton to be on your side? Curious. He is making lots of mistakes in Calvinism. He's been corrected before.

Nevertheless, I am offering this opportunity to people to have a friendly discussion. It is NOT to be hostile. I am well versed in Reformed Theology along with Scripture. So, let me know. Perhaps I can set it up for an evening Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday next week... The week of the 27th.

Let me know who all is interested.

 

[TomFL]

TomFL, do you consider Leighton to be on your side? Curious. He is making lots of mistakes in Calvinism. He's been corrected before.

Nevertheless, I am offering this opportunity to people to have a friendly discussion. It is NOT to be hostile. I am well versed in Reformed Theology along with Scripture. So, let me know. Perhaps I can set it up for an evening Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday next week... The week of the 27th.

Let me know who all is interested.

I consider my position to be similar to his. It would be more correct to say I am on his side

And am fully confident he will defend his position well and without acrimony or any hostility.

Naturally I would disagree with your claim as a former Calvinist he is well acquainted with what Calvinism teaches

BTW I am not hostile to you either and consider you a brother in Christ who is doing a good work

We just disagree on this issue

 

[Five Solas]

Yes, I would be interested. Thanks.

 

[civic]

After reading some threads here and seeing some of the misrepresentations of the reformed perspective, I thought I would offer an opportunity for people to gather for a live chat discussion on Calvinism. I could set up a zoom or streamyard session and provide people with the opportunity to enter in and "argue" Calvinism. I've been defending it for about 30 years and would be willing to field questions, counter-arguments, and present information that I think would be helpful in the discussion.

If any of you are interested and would like to participate or at least watch it, please let me know here. I would be glad to set it up. All you need to do is just say you're interested in participating or watching... or, that you don't care...

I will be debating limited atonement this Saturday, October 24, 2020, 9PM EST, with Sam Shamoun. I'll be posting the link on carm's facebook page shortly before the event. So, after that discussion, if anyone is interested in participating in a live chat opportunity, I would be available to set it up. Again, please let me know here.

Thanks

I look forward to that Matt I'm friends with Sam on FB.

 

[civic]

I'm in for sure thanks Matt !

 

[zerinus]

After reading some threads here and seeing some of the misrepresentations of the reformed perspective, I thought I would offer an opportunity for people to gather for a live chat discussion on Calvinism. I could set up a zoom or streamyard session and provide people with the opportunity to enter in and "argue" Calvinism. I've been defending it for about 30 years and would be willing to field questions, counter-arguments, and present information that I think would be helpful in the discussion.

If any of you are interested and would like to participate or at least watch it, please let me know here. I would be glad to set it up. All you need to do is just say you're interested in participating or watching... or, that you don't care...

I will be debating limited atonement this Saturday, October 24, 2020, 9PM EST, with Sam Shamoun. I'll be posting the link on carm's facebook page shortly before the event. So, after that discussion, if anyone is interested in participating in a live chat opportunity, I would be available to set it up. Again, please let me know here.

Thanks

Hey Matt, your forum website still doesn't have a favicon, like the previous one did. There are lots of nice Christian symbols that could be used to create a favicon with; or you could use the favicon of the creator of the forum software, which looks like this:

​

Which is quite nice as well. I extracted it from their website using this site. The previous favicon was also the developer's, but this one looks nicer. I don't think that they would object to using their favicon for their own forum software, but you might like to check just to be sure.

 

[Quinque Solas]

After reading some threads here and seeing some of the misrepresentations of the reformed perspective, I thought I would offer an opportunity for people to gather for a live chat discussion on Calvinism. I could set up a zoom or streamyard session and provide people with the opportunity to enter in and "argue" Calvinism. I've been defending it for about 30 years and would be willing to field questions, counter-arguments, and present information that I think would be helpful in the discussion.

If any of you are interested and would like to participate or at least watch it, please let me know here. I would be glad to set it up. All you need to do is just say you're interested in participating or watching... or, that you don't care...

I will be debating limited atonement this Saturday, October 24, 2020, 9PM EST, with Sam Shamoun. I'll be posting the link on carm's facebook page shortly before the event. So, after that discussion, if anyone is interested in participating in a live chat opportunity, I would be available to set it up. Again, please let me know here.

Thanks

Interested, thanks!

 

[zerinus]

I consider my position to be similar to his. It would be more correct to say I am on his side

And am fully confident he will defend his position well and without acrimony or any hostility.

Naturally I would disagree with your claim as a former Calvinist he is well acquainted with what Calvinism teaches

BTW I am not hostile to you either and consider you a brother in Christ who is doing a good work

We just disagree on this issue

Leighton Flowers is anti-Calvinist, and I agree with his anti-Calvinism. But he is not a good debater, and he tends to embarras himself in challenging debates. He is also a very longwinded guy. It takes him two hours to say what would take me fifteen minutes to say more clearly. But he has gained experience and learned from his mistakes, and he may be able to hold his own in such a discussion as Matt is now proposing. So I would recommend him to be invited.

 

[TomFL]

Leighton Flowers is anti-Calvinist, and I agree with his anti-Calvinism. But he is not a good debater, and he tends to embarras himself in challenging debates. He is also a very longwinded guy. It takes him two hours to say what would take me fifteen minutes to say more clearly. But he has gained experience and learned from his mistakes, and he may be able to hold his own in such a discussion as Matt is now proposing. So I would recommend him to be invited.

I would point to his debate with James White as proof of his capability

He appears longwinded because instead of jumping right in he employs hermenuetics to set context. He follows a methodology of going from a broad view to the narrow and he is very thorough

 

[brightfame52]

Interested Matt

 

[zerinus]

I would point to his debate with James White as proof of his capability

I watched one debate between him and James White several years ago, and I can't remember now what the subject of the debate was. If it is the same one that you are referring to, then I would have to disagree. I do recall that he did not come out well in that debate.

He appears longwinded because instead of jumping right in he employs hermenuetics to set context. He follows a methodology of going from a broad view to the narrow and he is very thorough

That is a very kind and generous way of putting it. My impression is that he likes listening to the sound of his own voice too much.

 

[TomFL]

I watched one debate between him and James White several years ago, and I can't remember now what the subject of the debate was. If it is the same one that you are referring to, then I would have to disagree. I do recall that he did not come out well in that debate.

That is a very kind and generous way of putting it. My impression is that he likes listening to the sound of his own voice too much.

I will assume it was the Romans 9 debate. In that case I will say I find your comments rather funny as he shot down James White's entire interpretation of Romans 9 by using hermenuetics and showing Romans 9 is part of a unit which includes Romans 11 which is contrary to Dr. White's interpretation and Dr. White could say that is not exegesis. Apparently he felt Leighton should not go out of chapter 9 and use the entire bible to set the context but doing such is a sure fire way for misinterpretation.

 

[Synergy]

I'm curious to know if either one of you intend to defend limited/unlimited atonement by appealing to the Koine Greek NT Text?

 

[TomFL]

I'm curious to know if either one of you intend to defend limited/unlimited atonement by appealing to the Koine Greek NT Text?

Did you have a text in mind ?

And would you consider John's use of the term world and the Lexical data as fulfilling such ?

 

[Matt Slick]

Leighton Flowers is anti-Calvinist, and I agree with his anti-Calvinism. But he is not a good debater, and he tends to embarras himself in challenging debates. He is also a very longwinded guy. It takes him two hours to say what would take me fifteen minutes to say more clearly. But he has gained experience and learned from his mistakes, and he may be able to hold his own in such a discussion as Matt is now proposing. So I would recommend him to be invited.

First things first. I'm offering the opportunity for the people here who are posting. After all, it is in this thread that the anti-Calvinist perspective is presented. I was addressing the people here. Perhaps Leighton and I can arrange a debate later on.

 

[TomFL]

First things first. I'm offering the opportunity for the people here who are posting. After all, it is in this thread that the anti-Calvinist perspective is presented. I was addressing the people here. Perhaps Leighton and I can arrange a debate later on.

Would be nice to see.

 

[zerinus]

I will assume it was the Romans 9 debate. In that case I will say I find your comments rather funny as he shot down James White's entire interpretation of Romans 9 by using hermenuetics and showing Romans 9 is part of a unit which includes Romans 11 which is contrary to Dr. White's interpretation and Dr. White could say that is not exegesis. Apparently he felt Leighton should not go out of chapter 9 and use the entire bible to set the context but doing such is a sure fire way for misinterpretation.

OK, I watched it again, or most of it. It is over two hours long. But my impression of it hasn't changed. He shouts and screams, and doesn't present a cogent argument. You don't win an argument by shouting. If you have a valid, logical, cogent, coherent, convincing argument to present, it wins by itself. You don't need to shout and scream to make it more convincing. You would only want to do that if you were not sure your argument by itself was convincing enough. James White at least have the added advantage of keeping his cool. But neither of them are being terribly convincing. Part of the problem is that the question is too vague. Romans chapter 9 is a big subject. Which aspect of Romans 9 are you discussing? Predestination? Unconditional Election? Faith vs. Works? Something else? That is not a right way to set up a debate. A better way would be to narrow the question down to something like, "Does the Bible teach predestination?" or "unconditional election?" or "limited atonement?" etc. Then there can follow a meaningful discussion.