The Instigator
annanicole
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
respectonslaverite
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 22369
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

annanicole

Pro

I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved. I will define the terms:

A saved person: one who is saved, not lost

A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God

May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law

Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell

The historic Baptist position is that a child of God (once saved) cannot possibly ever be lost (always saved). Of course, I deny this.

First round acceptance only. 5 rounds, 24 hr response. During each round after the 1st, each disputant is permitted to submit three questions which his peer is to answer in his next post. No new lines of argumentation permitted in the last round.
respectonslaverite

Con

I do see where you are coming from in saying that a "saved" person can sin in such a way as to be eternally lost, however all religions that stem off of Christianity also say that our God is a forgiving God. I believe that no matter the extent or severity of the sin, God will forgive you. Take the parable of the prodigal son. In this parable, the eldest son asks his father for his inheritance because he is bored of working on the farm. The father gives him his inheritance and blessing, and sends him on his way. The eldest son goes and squanders the money on drinks and women, and ends up living with the pigs. He one day decides to go back to his father and beg for work as a stable boy, for it is better than his life with the pigs. However, he is scared that his father will be mad for tarnishing his reputation and squandering his money. However, when the father sees the son, he tells his servants to slaughter the fatted calf, and prepare a feast, saying "my son was lost and now he is found!" This all demonstrates that God's love is great enough, that no matter what we do, he will accept us back if we just turn to him. For when a shepherd loses one sheep, he will leave the others to go find, thus is our God, the shepherd, and sinners are the lost sheep.
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Pro

Questions:

(1) What was the salvation status of King Saul up until the point of I Samuel 11: 6? And what was his status the point of his suicide?

(2) Does Heb 6: 4-6 describe a situation that actually happened or actually could happen?

(3) Does a believer - a saved believer - possess the free agency, the power of choice, to become an unbeliever?

I will submit, first of all, that a faithful child of God cannot be lost, but I predict the major difference, the major point in controvery will be this: "Can a man who believes today quit believing? Can his faith be severed? Can he depart from it? Can he have his faith overthrown? Can a saved person depart from the living God so as to wind up in unbelief?" Now, I think that will ultimately be the issue, and the negative is welcome to dispute that contention.

I will start slowly with a general warning: "Let him the standeth take heed lest he fall." (I Cor 10: 12) Warnings such as this always imply danger, and so I pose the simply question: if no danger of falling exists, why waste time with warnings?

1. I begin with the OT narrative concerning King Saul.

Point 1: King Saul was chosen. "Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen." (I Sam 10: 24)
Point 2: King Saul was anointed. "Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head ... .the Lord hath anointed thee." (I Sam 10: 1)
Point 3: The Spirit of God was promised to come upon Saul. "And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee." (I Sam 10: 6)
Point 4: Likewise, the ability to prophesy was promised to Saul. "...and thou shalt prophesy with them." (I Sam 10: 6)
Point 5: Saul would be turned into 'another man.' "... and shalt be turned into another man." (I Sam 10: 6)
Point 6: Saul was given another heart. "God gave him another heart." (I Sam 10: 9)
Point 7: The other signs promised to Saul came to pass. "... and all those signs came to pass that day." (I Sam 10: 9)
Point 8: The Spirit of God came upon Saul. " .. the Spirit of God came upon him." (I Sam 10: 10)
Point 9: Saul prophesied. " ... he prophesied among them." (I Sam 10: 10)
Point 10: Again, the Spirit of God came upon Saul. (I Sam 11: 6)

I'll pause and state that no better description of a saved man exists: "chosen, anointed, given another heart, Spirit of God upon him, and able to prophesy." Surely any person who gave such an "experience" would be accepted into certain denominations. Alright, how did the whole affair turn out? As the story progresses, we find Saul in a sad state, disobedient, wicked and recreant, culminating in:

Point 11: The Spirit of God departed from Saul. "... the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul." (I Sam 16: 14)
Point 12: An evil spirit was upon Saul. (I Sam 16: 23)
Point 13: The Lord departed from Saul (I Sam 18: 12)
Point 14: Among other things, Saul plotted murder (I Sam 18: 11)
Point 15: The Lord became Saul's enemy (I Sam 15: 24)
Point 16: The kingdom was taken from Saul, and Saul ultimately committed suicide.

Alright, points 11 - 16 describe everything but a saved man, and I left quite a bit out. Spirit-departed, God-forsaken Saul committed suicide, and according to the negative position, Saul was either (1) never saved or (2) saved and never lost. My position is that Saul simply and unfortunately confirms I Chron 28: 9, spoken to Solomon, "if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever." I truly anticipate seeing some sort of explanation of King Saul's "early" status versus his "later" status.

2. The behavior and consequences of national Israel are types and shadows for our Christian example. "These things happened unto them by way of example." And what is the example?

Well, God's people can forget God. "The children of Israel did evil .. and forgot the Lord their God." (Judges 3: 7). "Beware lest thou forget the Lord." (Deut 6: 12). "So are the paths of all that forget God." (Job 8: 13). "...ye that forget God, lest I tear you into pieces. (Ps 50: 22)

What is God's response? "I. even I, will utterly forget you .. forsake you .. cast you out of my presence." (Jer 23: 39-40). "Whatsoever things were written aforetime" - here's one thing that was written - "were written for our learning." (Rom 15: 4). And here's the parallel in Hebrews 4: 11, "Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of unbelief" and I Cor 10: 11, "Now all these things happened to them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition ..."

I invite your attention to the possibility of a nation or a person forgetting God, God's response, and the fact that these are written that "no man fall after the same ensample of unbelief."

3. Remaining saved is conditional

Point 1: You are saved, "if .. " (there's the condition) "..ye keep in memory what I preached unto you .." (I Cor 15: 2)
Point 2: "We are made partakers of Christ, if ..." (there's the condition) "... we hold ... stedfast." (Heb 3: 14)
Point 3: "If (there's the condition) ye continue in the faith .. " (Col 1: 23)
Point 4: And, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (I Pet 1: 9)

Thus, "Be thou faithful until death (there's the condition), and I will give thee a crown of life."

4. Heb 6

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (v. 4-6). I can think of no better picture, no better description, of a saved person, and these persons under consideration did not merely "fall", but they "fell away." "Once enlightened" means "illuminated" by the rays of the gospel, as in Heb 10: 32. And what's more, the word "if" is added in verse 6, it should and does read "having fallen way" - perfect participle - in some translations. Why such a vivid description and such a stern warning if such an event is an utter impossibility? This class of Christians who not only ceased to believe, but re-embraced Judaism, not only "fell away" and "crucified Christ afresh, but also "it was impossible 'renew' or 'resave' them. I have actually had people tell me that this passage describes an impossibility! - that Paul wasted his ink and paper on something that could not possibly occur.

Here's your man:

1. Once enlightened
2. Tasted of the heavenly gift
3. Partakers of the Holy Ghost
4. Tasted the good word of God
5. (Tasted the) powers of the world to come

Now, "then fell away" (ASV, 1901). Well then what? It is impossible - not an unlikelihood - but impossible to renew them again. Ok, what becomes of them? There is a world of difference between "stumbling and falling" and "falling away." I can "stumble and fall" on a boat, but if I "fall away" from the boat, that's a different matter. Here are people that, by all indications, wound up rejecting Christ - after being saved. They reverted to unbelief and, hence, crucified the Son of God afresh. Were they ever saved? Did they wind up lost? Is Paul just making the whole scenario up? I invite your attention to the passage.

I am about out of space, but there you have three questions and four negative arguments. I do not want to introduce others, even briefly, because I want those four answered thoroughly. The last time I debated, the person never answered a question, and never noticed an argument: he simply provided an affirmative (he was in the negative) and dropped out. I do not make tons of affirmative arguments. Three or four is quite enough, and allow plenty of room for responses. Thank you.
respectonslaverite

Con

respectonslaverite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Pro

Well, since the opponent's account is no longer active, I guess I'll leave the first argument as it stands.
respectonslaverite

Con

respectonslaverite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
annanicole

Pro

Same as above. He shoulda just backed up, looked wise, and said, "Prove there is a hell."
respectonslaverite

Con

respectonslaverite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
annanicole

Pro

Same is above.
respectonslaverite

Con

respectonslaverite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by respectonslaverite 5 years ago
respectonslaverite
I just realized that I am more so arguing about nuances than the whole idea.
Posted by Idauntiles 5 years ago
Idauntiles
Being Pro on "A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost." means you believe this to be true.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
Haha, BOMB .... no, you're back in "general practice." Your speciality, sematics, won't work on this one.
Posted by annanicole 5 years ago
annanicole
Thanks. I didn't delete it ... I modified it so that I'm taking the affirmative.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
awww...can't run semantics :(
Posted by Anayansi 5 years ago
Anayansi
Anna, this is the title of your debate:
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.
You took the CON position.
That means that your stance is that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE that a "saved person can sin in such a way as to be eternally lost".
In your first round, however, you contradict yourself. I suggest that you delete this debate, as it is flawed.
Posted by Anayansi 5 years ago
Anayansi
Anna, this is the title of your debate:
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.
You took the CON position.
That means that your stance is that YOU DO NOT BELIEVE that a "saved person can sin in such a way as to be eternally lost".
In your first round, however, you contradict yourself. I suggest that you delete this debate, as it is flawed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.