Open Discussion with Matt Slick, 10/29/2020, 9PM EST

Matt Slick

CARM President
Staff member
This was originally meant to be for the Calvinism Arminianism board, but I thought I'd open it up to everyone since the anti-calvinists seem hesitant to participate in a live discussion where I can answer their questions. So, perhaps a broader audience might like to participate in a discussion on ... whatever-you-want-to-talk-about.

It'll be tonight, 10/29/2020, 9PM EST. I'll post a URL to Streamyard here that will feed to both Youtube and Facebook. If you want to participate in a live chat in streamyard, you'll need a microphone. If you have a camera that helps but you don't need one. If you don't want to participate in a live voice discussion, but prefer only to type, you can do that as well since the feeds of both Facebook and YouTube will come back to the stream yard and I could see them.

Anyway, I hope you will show up and perhaps we could have a good discussion.

I will post the link information about 1/2 hour before the show here as well as the CARM Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/Carm.org/

If you are interested in attending, could you please let me know in this thread? I'm curious.

Thanks

Matt Slick
 

Attachments

  • internet-discussion01.PNG
    internet-discussion01.PNG
    663.5 KB · Views: 6

rakovsky

Member
Matt,
I find your conversion story from the occult to Christianity that you put on the Carm website inspiring. It is a story of moving from dark to light.

I don't know whether you exaggerated your story, like if you had both Christianity and were doing some occult things, which us what I think a lot of young people who dabble in the occult do. Like they will go to Church with their families but then do spells for fun.

Anyway, the reason I bring that up is because in terms of theology or ideology, whether you are Calvinist or Arminian is less of an issue. I think that this wholesomeness is a good background idea to keep in mind as the landscape for the Calvinist v Arminian debates or discussions.

One place in Calvinist circles where I think there is some leeway is the topic of humans' free will. There are Calvinists who openly take the view that humans have no free will. I guess that they would make the argument that they believe that God controls a person's decision whether to accept God through election and "irresistible grace", so therefore man does not have free will. But I think that there are professed Calvinists who would disagree and say that man nonetheless has an independent free choice or free will.

A classic EO Christian counterargument has been that God foreknows all, but that this foreknowing does not force people to make their choices. God chooses people for different things but God also WANTS all people to be saved, as Paul in 2 Timothy 2 says, He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." So one idea could be that God in some sense elects everyone for salvation (eg the OT righteous or Native Americans before 1492) but elects some to hear the Word, etc.

My sense in terms of the development of the Calvinist position is that Augustine emphasized or gave his take on certain ideas in Paul on the topic. Augustine IIRC had studied the Greek fatalist philosophy of Stoicism. Then, Luther gave his explanation of the Augustinian ideas, and then Calvin gave his own explanation or take on those ideas. In my view, Calvin was putting things stronger than Paul would or did in terms of the Elect, Free Will, Predestination etc.

In terms of questions for the discussion, I would ask how Calvinism differs from Church fathers besides Augustine on the topic, if it all.
 

Septextura

Active member
I missed the stream, this was a classic.

Regarding Canadian Catholic, he defaulted to the position of all pagan religions posing as Christianity - Bureaucratic Succession™ (replacement of Christ, aka Antichrist) and authority above God's word. They are desperate to whitewash all the evil poisonous fruit that tree of Satan's produces. And they wash evil with greater evil.

I see sedevacantist apologists (aka gatekeepers) deceive the laity with promises that few bad popes, priests, doctrines, councils don't make a bad church from a historical perspective. It's just a bad run, they will huddle up together and weather the storm. But if you research history, it's always been this evil, this pagan, this Satanic. Exactly why the Reformation happened. Many Catholics themselves consider the Vatican as spawn of Satan and the pope as Antichrist. Have the gates of hell prevailed against Christ if Rome is the one true church? Sure looks like it!

My question for apologists like Canadian Catholic would be what is his red line? What does the Vatican need to do for him to leave as God commanded in Revelation 18:4? If molesting your children and pagan worship of Pachamama isn't it, is there a red line at all?

Touch not Satan's anointed.
 
Last edited:
Top