A Christian can lose their salvation 1
Debate Rounds (4)
+ No semantics, if you don' understand the resolution don't accept the debate.
+ Arguments must be backed with scripture
+ Keep it clean
+ Please only accept if you're committed to debating this topic.
I just wanted to clarify on the definition of a Christian.
My definition would be: a person who has, by faith, received and fully trusted in Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Based on: Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16
Thank you for the debate
First of, before getting into the bulk of the debate, I would like to respond to my opponent's definition of a Christian. The opening round was meant solely for acceptance, and rules; nothing else.
This is grounds or a loss in conduct points.
Next I would like to say that this is a topic that as of now I'm fairly uncertain of my stance on. there is plenty of scripture both ways to support either belief.
It it my hope that through the course of his debate, that both my opponent and I can argue in such a way as to produce genuine thought and clash between these two beliefs. It is not my hope, that either of us debates this round with the intention of simply trying to tuck another win beneath our belts, or to change the others beliefs. But instead to test the metal of our own.
That said, I will not begin with the actual debate.
= Definitions =
Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Lose- "Be deprived of or cease to have or retain"
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
= Arguments =
1. Exodus 32:33 NIV
"The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book."
+ You cannot blot out a name that was never there
+ Since the name had to have been there in the first place, the person knew God. To have been blotted out, means that a person has lost their salvation.
2. Luke 8:13 NIV
"Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."
+ They received the word with joy when they heard it.
+ They believed for a while; there was a belief in their lives.
+ They fell away, losing their salvation
3. Matthew 10:33 NIV
"But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven."
+ Cross reference with Romans 10:9, if one has believed in their heart, and declared with their mouth "Jesus is Lord" then they have been saved. But when if they later they deny Christ, and never repent of it, then they have lost their salvation.
4. Ezekiel 33:13 NIV
"If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done."
+ When God declares some-one as righteous, they are righteous indeed.
+ When some-one begins to be self reliant, and trusting in their own righteousness, they no longer trust in God
+ They die for their self-righteousness.
5. Ezekiel 33:18 NIV
"If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, they will die for it."
+ You can't turn from righteousness if you aren't righteous.
6. 1 Timothy 4:1 NIV
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."
+ Is any commentary really necessary here?
Romans 11:22 NIV
"Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off."
+ God forgives those who repent when they've done wrong.
+ If you don't repent you aren't in God.
+ You get cut off.
= Sources =
 Google Dictionary
In this debate I will do two things: Refute every argument my opponent could possible think of; and provide evidence that supports my position.
Kai Neilson, a philosopher, said, "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false." What Kai Neilson is saying is, even if you can show my arguments are wrong you still need to have arguments that I can not refute. In this debate I will do exactly what Kai Neilson says you need to do in order to prove the conclusion of your arguments are false. I will refute all your arguments and provide evidence for mine.
Exodus 32:33 - It is very important that while looking at specific verses we be sure to keep them in context. While, if anyone reads just this verse, they may think you have a point. However, reading this verse in context we see what is actually going on. This is right after Israel made the golden calf and God is saying He will "spare the nation as a whole, but he definitely reserved the right to judge individual sinners." When looking at this verse in context we see that it was not written about believers losing salvation.
Luke 8:13 - There could be two problems with this example. People can believe God and believe the Word of God, without believing in God. So I am not convinced that these people were ever Christians. My second argument is that people can fall away from God without losing salvation. Christians relationship with God can sometimes be better than other times. When it is not as good, someone would say they have fallen away from God for a bit, but certainly that does not conclude they lose salvation.
Matthew 10:33 - This does not say anything about someone who is already a Christian. If someone disowns God, then they do not accept Jesus as their Savior meaning they are not a Christian. This verse is completely irrelevant.
Ezekiel 33:13 - This verse is just saying someone can do righteous things, "but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done." People can only be saved by putting trust in Jesus as Savior, not by putting trust in their righteousness. People who put their trust in their righteousness and not Jesus are not Christians to begin with.
Ezekiel 33:18 - I believe a righteous person, a Christian in this case, can not turn to evil. If we look at what Paul says in Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" He's saying if we are Christian should we keep on sinning to get more grace? He says of course not. He's saying I couldn't even do that, its impossible for me, "how can we live in it any longer?"
1 Timothy 4:1 - Again in this verse, those who abandon the faith did not have "real" faith in the first place. It is possible for people to say they have faith, convince everyone else they have faith, even convince them self they have faith, without having that real faith.
Romans 11:22 - This verse actual supports my position. "Paul is stressing continue in his kindness; not in the sense of a salvation by works, but continuing in God's grace and goodness to us - a relationship of continual abiding." This verse is talking about God's grace and kindness. If someone does not accept God's grace then they are not a Christian and will be "cut off."
Now I will provide sufficient evidence that a Christian cannot lose their salvation.
Romans 5:1 - "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Here, the word justify means to declare righteous. Anyone who puts faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord is declared righteous by God. "For a Christian to lose salvation God would have to go back on his word and 'un-declare' what He had previously declared"
John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Once someone becomes a Christian, they are promised eternal life, so if someone could lose their salvation God would be breaking his promise.
Romans 8:30 - "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." "As we learned in Romans 5:1, justification is declared at the moment of faith. According to Romans 8:30, glorification is guaranteed for all those whom God justifies. Glorification refers to a Christian receiving a perfect resurrection body in heaven. If a Christian can lose salvation then Romans 8:30 is in error, because God could not guarantee glorification for all those whom He predestines, calls, and justifies."
2 Cor. 5:17 - "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." How can anyone become an old creation? If you go and read on it even says that the old things have passed away. So even if someone who is a Christian wanted to go back to their old ways they couldn't. Yes they can go back and do things that are wrong but they can never turn back on God. Like Paul says in Romans 6 - It would be impossible for him to go back to his old ways and take advantage of God's grace.
"Nothing can separate a Christian from God's love (Romans 8:38-39). Nothing can remove a Christian from God's hand (John 10:28-29). God is both willing and able to guarantee and maintain the salvation He has given us.
Kai Neilson's words have no place in a debate about scripture. Where we to conform to his philosophy, this would no longer be a debate, but simply my opponent telling me how I'm wrong.
Instead, we must realize the blazing truth that this debate is one of reciprocal burdens. My opponent has just as much to prove as I do.
Then let's look at some surrounding verses shall we?
"So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written." The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."
+ This proves my point all the more heartily.
+ My opponent's first argument does nothing to refute this scripture, he simply offers his own opinion and analysis. My opponent's conviction on whether or not they where truly Christians is irrelevant, that's something solely between that person and God. Second, he doesn't refute this argument with any scripture, just his opinion.
+ And to my opponent's second argument, This scripture isn't the same as the parable of the prodigal son. It is of some-one falling away during the time of testing.
+ The word used here is "Disown". Unless you've know Christ, you cannot disown him. The lost are going to go to hell because they don't have a relationship with Jesus Christ; whether or not they "Disown" him is irrelevant because they never knew him in the first place.
+ Let's not forget though, that in this verse God is the one telling them they are righteous. A perfect and holy God is not going to call a sinner righteous, he can't even look upon sin. My opponent's argument here is based on only partial analysis of scripture.
+ Romans 6:12 "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."
+ 1 Corinthians 10:13 "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
+ Point being we will still sin, it takes spiritual maturity and growth in Christ every day to get to the point we don't sin whatsoever. Paul offers himself as an example as he was extremely strong in the faith, and had this issue of sin never been a problem, he would have had no reason to write what he did.
+ Romans 5:20 "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more"
+ This verse does nothing for the argument of eternal security, it only establishes that those who accept Christ are justified through Faith.
+ Extend my arguments on Ezekiel 33:13
+ Matthew 7:19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
+ Of course the life they're given is eternal life; that being in the afterlife. Thus if before death they turn from the faith, God is not breaking his promise.
+ Extend argument on John 3:16
+ This verse does nothing to argue for my opponent's stance, it argues for predestination.
+ Extend Ezekiel 33:13
+ Extend Romans 11:22
2 Corinthians 5:17
+ Extend Romans 11:22
+ Don't set God to the same limitations that humans are set at, but applying your logic in such a way as this, the fallacy of false security is ever more so furthered. According to scriptures, God can indeed take away salvation
+ Extend Exodus 32:33
+ The names can be blotted out
+ Revelation 3:16 "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
+ My opponent is correcting in saying that nothing can pry them from his hands; however he can spew the lukewarm from his mouth.
+ Psalm 27-29 "Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous. But as for me, afflicted and in pain— may your salvation, God, protect me"
+ God will do as he wishes to do; nothing is assured to us beyond what God promises us. The scriptures says that God is willing and able, but it does not say he will.
I urge a Pro vote in this debate.
Exodus- When I say in context I don't simply mean a few verses before and after you initial verse. I mean looking at it in how it is used in the entire story. In this case it is in the story of Israel making the golden calf, as I have already mentioned. You did not address the issue I brought up so maybe you should read threw my round two argument again.
Luke- You said that I simply offered my own opinion. Well in a sense I did, but my opinion of whether these individuals were Christian is based off the definition of a Christian which you gave. You also said that "whether or not they were truly Christians is irrelevant." That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That has everything to do with this debate. If they were not in fact Christians, which is what I'm proposing based on scripture and commentaries, then they could not lose salvation for they never had it. Also the time of testing could mean on earth. i.e temptation when we are on the earth. If someone gives in to temptation then they would be falling away from God but certainly not lose salvation.
Matthew- The word disown means "Refuse to acknowledge any connection with." So if they refuse to acknowledge Jesus as savior then they are not Christians in the first place, meaning they cannot have lost salvation. You went on to say "whether or not they "Disown" him is irrelevant because they never knew him in the first place." Well that's exactly my point...
Ezekiel- Yes but it says if a "righteous man trust in his righteousness and does evil..." That is very different from just saying doing evil. If he trust in his righteousness and not Jesus he will not be saved. You also said "God is the one telling them they are righteous." Well, that is simply a mistake because it is God talking but he says, "If I tell a righteous man..." He, by no means, is telling them they are in fact righteous. He is simply saying If he tells a righteous man.
Ezekiel- I never said that we don't sin anymore. I'm saying that it is impossible to sin to a point where we lose salvation. The theory that we can sin to a point where God will take away salvation from someone who has it is simply not biblical.
Romans- You said "it only establishes that those who accept Christ are justified through Faith." It does that and more. As I said earlier those who are justified through faith are declared righteous by God. If e where to take away salvation he would have to un-declare what he already declared. Just as I wrote in round 2.
John- Yes you are right when you said "the life they're given is eternal life" but that is the promise Jesus makes as soon as someone becomes a Christian by accepting Jesus as their Savior. So at whatever point in their life, if God takes salvation away, He would be breaking the promise He made as soon as they accepted Jesus as savior"
Romans- This verse argues that all who Jesus justifies, He also glorifies. We learned from the other verses that justification happens at the point of acceptance of Jesus as savior. If God can take away salvation than Romans 8:30 is wrong.
2 Corinthians- I am not setting God to limitations that humans are set at. There are things that God can not do such as sin. Since he cannot sin, does that mean He is not all powerful? Of course not! God can't do anything outside of his own character. I'm saying that to make, that has already been made a new creation, an old creation, would be out of His character based on the bible. You said "According to scriptures, God can indeed take away salvation." Really? Then you should show me one I cannot refute because I already have done so to all your other arguments.
Romans - you used Rev. 3:16 as a reference. You are under two pretenses that may not be true. The first is you are assuming these people God is spitting out are indeed Christians. I believe that they were, though some people don't. I'm guessing we agree on that. The second problem is that you are assuming that when it says "Spit you out of my mouth" that it is saying they lose salvation. I haven't found any commentaries that say that, but if you can find a credible one feel free to share it.
You said "nothing is assured to us beyond what God promises us" Yes, that's exactly my point! God has promised eternal life to everyone who accepts Jesus as their Savior. That promise, according to Romans, happens as soon as we believe Jesus to be our Savior. If at any point God takes that salvation away, He would be breaking his promise. Which He cannot do. You just made my strongest argument yet! Thank you.
Hello-Orange forfeited this round.
stubs forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff'd first
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.