But Calvinists tend to win alot of scholarly debates. Why? Because many Calvinists are scholars, and their opponents are often your backyard run-of-the-mill pastor. That is about to change. Calvinists weave a very sticky web when they debate, and their unwitting opponents will walk right into it. How they do it is by coming up with their own terms and definitions to scriptures in their monologues, and then getting their opponents to agree to them, thus they are ensnared in the Calvinist trap. To effectively debate a Calvinist you have to nip it in the bud, strike at the very root and core of their arguments by showing that their own terms and definitions are not scriptural, and that their lingo and interpretations are heretical.
Furthermore, it needs mentioning that John Calvin had a personal hand in the execution of Michael Servetus. It's worth noting, because Servetus was murdered for doctrinal differences, namely, denying the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as infant baptism, believing the age of accountability is 20, and remaining unmarried in his life. THESE WERE CRIMES WORTHY OF DEATH?!? Not only does this sad fact show the character of John Calvin, but also his pitifully low scriptural knowledge, in that execution has never been the answer to heresy as of the New Testament. (see Luke 9:54-56, 2nd Tim 2:17-18, Titus 1:9) So if the Holy Spirit guided Paul into instruction on how to deal with a heretic, what spirit was guiding John Calvin? If any mortal can justify death for any of the 43 charges brought against Servetus, I suggest they themselves be locked away, and all Mormons/JWs should stay clear of knocking on their door.
Keeping in tone with atrocities, I must mention an essential belief to dedicated Calvinists. Every devout 5 point Calvinist believes in the sovereignty of God to a very unscriptural degree, there's no bones about it. Let's say an average woman is strolling her baby down a sidewalk in typical mainstreet USA, and she gets abducted and then brutally gang raped by 12 guys, her baby is also stolen and later found slaughtered. This is a true story, and things like this appear in the news from time to time. Did God ordain this to happen?
Christians will universally say "no". In fact, most religions of the world will say "no". But a Calvinist will say "yes". The devout Calvinist has no choice but to say that God ordained it to happen, for to say otherwise would be denying God's absolute sovereignty in ALL things. To deny this is to remove one of the essential beliefs of Calvinism. The sickening part about this, is that many Calvinists will say I'm right, and many have.
Calvinists hold God's sovereignty to such a degree that they believe that man wouldn't and couldn't commit evil, outside of God's decree. They believe that God has ordained literally everything that has ever happened, including all wars and every act of violence no matter how small or large. (Hitler was only doing God's will according to die hard Calvinists.) In doing so, they must also face that they deny that man sins due to the fallen nature, which goes in the face of every mainstream Christian doctrine.
Press the issue long enough, and they will eventually come to terms with this, and will at least in part, have to abandon Calvinism. I will have to address Isaiah 45:7 (The Lord makes evil) in another section, because it goes into another topic. Needless to say, it's one of the only verses of it's kind in the Bible.
So what scriptures do I have to show that God doesn't literally decree everything that ever happens? Hosea 8:4, Jer 19:5, and 32:35 are good examples, because God speaks there and literally says He had nothing to do with the evil that was going on, so far as even saying it NEVER entered His mind! These verses alone are enough to crush this aspect of Calvinism.
Here's something else to think about: If Calvinism is the correct interpretation of scriptures, I don't think Christianity would have had to have waited around for Martin Luther, or John Calvin to figure it out. It would have been found in the writings of the first century, and I'm no Catholic apologist (as you may aptly notice from another one of my articles). As disjointed as the early sprigs of Christianity were, you would think such a doctrine would have found root among the people who knew Paul in person, but even they it seems never took his words that way.
You may think such a doctrine existed but was snuffed out by the Holy Roman Empire. This doesn't lend historical credibility though, as the writings/works of Origen, and later Arius were in direct conflict with the Catholic church and went head to head with Constantine, yet they survive. I believe also the popular 'catch phrases' would have been talked about by Jesus Christ, but strangely, we see no such language used in his speeches, particularly on eternal life, or salvation.
Now for the points of the T.U.L.I.P.
Below I will soundly refute some of the best Calvinists out there, but I will omit their lengthy unsupported paragraphs and deal only with the verses given. Showing that when you boil away all the fluff and feathers, the T.U.L.I.P. of Calvinism stands or falls by every point. You need all 5 points leaning on eachother to support the doctrine. I will, however, include the sentences before and after the quotations, so as to be sure of the context and so nobody can whine "You didn't quote the whole thing".
You may see in the following articles that some verses you can think of are not brought up, keep in mind, I am only refuting that person's own teachings from their own sites. I figured that if I took down enough of the gurus out there, I would eventually hit every conceivable point from every possible view.
Major Calvinists Refuted