The Instigator
annanicole
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Viper-King
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Viper-King
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,208 times Debate No: 22423
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (1)

 

annanicole

Pro

First round acceptance. Each party is permitted to ask three questions of the other disputant each round, except the 1st and 5th, and the other party must answer on his succeeding post. I will define the term:

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.

I will add that the proposition is to mean, "The Bible - the sixty-six books of the standard Protestant Bible and a correct translation thereof - teaches by example, command, or inference that a saved person may sin ......"

I add this because I am in debate, if you want to call it that, with a moron named DakotaKrafick who accepted the terms and definitions, then as it turns out, does not believe in God, hell, heaven, eternally lost, eternally saved, or even the definition of sin as provided.
Viper-King

Con

I accept my opponent's definitions. Please note that I mlay forfeit a round or two because I had no idea this was 24 hours only. Anyways, let's DO THIS!!!
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Pro

uestions:

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

That should be enough: 4 brief affirmative arguments and 3 questions. I do not care for making twenty affirmative arguments so that the negative cannot possibly reply to them all. The last disputant simply ventured into an impossibility: prove the existence of God, heaven, hell, saved, and lost by science, and never approached intent of the proposition - and knew it. Thank you, and I await your reply.
Viper-King

Con

1. I honestly do not know about his salvation status. I believe that only God can truly judge him and as the Bible said that no man may judge.
2. Both. It has happened before and can happen.
3. Yes.

First of all, sin is a strong word. Sin is defined by my opponent as "believing or commiting acts contrary to God's law". However my opponent has a part that destroys her own case. It's the part that someone may sin that will make him or her go to hell. Choice is not sin. Choice is instead the freedom that God gives us to make decisions on our own. Saul chose to reject the Lord after he had accepted him. Rejecting God is not a sin. It is the choice that God gives us. The choice to reject God will ultimately make us reject God. So when my opponent says that King Saul is a primary example of a Christian sinning enough to go to hell, I'd say that King Saul wasn't a Christian because Jesus hadn't come yet and he didn't sin which made him eternally lost but his choice did. Therefore my opponent's first contention is invalid.

The 2nd contention was that the behavior and consequence of Israel are types and shadows for our Christian example. My opponent goes on to prove what Israel did and what will happen for Christians. However, let me remind you that Israel chose to reject God. They did not sin badly enough to get punished. They were destroyed because they rejected God not because of their sin.

My opponent's contention three is that salvation is conditional, I agree with this. It is conditional when you reject God. Rejecting God is not a sin because God gave us this choice. Therefore that choice to reject him is not a sin which means salvation is only conditional when we reject him.

When my opponent has as her 4th contention is basically that the Bible confirms we can fall away. I absolutely agree with that. The only thing I need to say is that we fall away by rejecting God which is not sinning. The Bible says we fall away, it does not say we sin in such a way to fall away but instead reject Christ which is NOT a sin but choice. Therefore falling away is irrelevant. I have refuted all of my opponent's case. I'm sorry that they were not as good as I thought but it's really tough to write good arguments in a couple of hours. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Pro

Thank you for your reply. I will point out a few (of what I consider to be) errors in it.

1. "What was the salvation status of King Saul up until the point of I Samuel 11: 6? And what was his status at the point of his suicide?" You say, "I honestly do not know about his salvation status." I can accept that, and this is the reason I asked: many people say that he was saved because the Spirit of God was upon him, yet the Spirit also departed from him. It would logically follow that he was lost at the point of the Spirit's departure, if he was saved at the point of the Spirit's being upon him.

2. "Does Heb 6: 4-6 describe a situation that actually happened or actually could happen?" You say, "yes." Well, is the person who fell away a saved unbeliever at that point. If he was saved, then disbelieved, and is lost, my affirmative is proven. If he was saved, then disbelieved, and remained saved, then you'll have a saved unbeliever in heaven. Is this correct?

3. "Does a believer - a saved believer - possess the free agency, the power of choice, to become an unbeliever?" Ok, if one simply exercises this choice to quit believing and becomes an atheist and dies an atheist - is he still saved?

4. "Choice is instead the freedom that God gives us to make decisions on our own. Saul chose to reject the Lord after he had accepted him. Rejecting God is not a sin." Rejecting God is not a sin? Since when? 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." Forsake means: "to quit or leave entirely; abandon; desert," whereas reject means, "to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff." (Dictionary.com). While not synonyms, the two carry the same idea.

5. "So when my opponent says that King Saul is a primary example of a Christian sinning enough to go to hell, I'd say that King Saul wasn't a Christian because Jesus hadn't come yet" Well, so would I, and for the same reason. I never said Saul was a Christian nor an example of one. I implied that Saul has enough positive descriptors to be called a saved person, then afterwards possessed enough negative descriptors to be called a lost person: I believe this to be the case.

6. "and he didn't sin which made him eternally lost but his choice did. Therefore my opponent's first contention is invalid." Umm ... i have a question. Can you name one sin, either before salvation or afterwards, that isn't a choice or by choice?

"for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever." I Chron 28: 9.

"choose you this day whom ye will serve" Josh 24: 15

7. "However, let me remind you that Israel chose to reject God. They did not sin badly enough to get punished." Yes, they did, and yes, they got punished. God took their land from them, allowed them to be enslaved, and eventually destroyed them as a nation and scattered them, and reined judgement upon Israel in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple, the records, and the artifacts.

8. "Rejecting God is not a sin because God gave us this choice." One can reject God and not even sin in so doing? Isn't lying a choice? Adultery is a choice. Murder is a choice. Shoot, even rape is a choice, I suppose - of the rapist, anyway. Does the fact that these are choices - bad choices - that people make eliminate them being sins? "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5: 28)

9. "The Bible says we fall away, it does not say we sin in such a way to fall away but instead reject Christ which is NOT a sin but choice." For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone who purports to be a Christian can say that rejecting Christ is not a sin. If not, then one is lost by not sinning: " ... he that disbelieveth shall be lost." (Mark 16: 16b) You're saying that the person hears the evidence, believes it, repents and whatever, and is saved - then renounces the whole affair, reverts to disbelief, and is still saved. In other words, he forsakes God, but God "hangs tight" with him. I repeat, " ... "if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever." "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24)

10. ""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."

Your contention is that, (1) yes, the person was saved, (2) yes, the person fell away, (3) yes the person wound up lost, BUT the "winding up lost" was not a result of any sin. What is it that separates a lost man from God in the first place? "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." (Isa 59: 2) So sins separate us from God, and these people fell away and were lost, yet it wasn't sin that caused it? Think about that, please.

That's enough for now. Thanks, and I await your reply. Sorry, I typed hurriedly: I was pushed for time.
Viper-King

Con

1. Okay. He rejected God.
2. No, he will be eternally lost because of rejecting God.
3. No.

Rejecting God is not a sin. The same idea does not mean they are the same thing. Forsaking is more of an abandonment issue. Rejecting is more of "I don't want or need you" kind of thing. The Bible says that this choice whether to serve him or not is not a sin. Rejection isn't a sin which means that one goes to hell not because of his/her sin but his/her choice to reject God. I don't think there should be any judgement against Saul and that only God knows if he was lost or not and that his case proves nothing becaue there was no Jesus and the basis of right and wrong were the conscience.

I think that every move we make is a choice but rejecting God is not a sin since God gave us this choice. Free will is a choice God gives us and nowhere in the Bible can I find that the rejecting of God is a sin. So forsaking and rejecting are two separate things and carry different ideas though similar in ways. I agree with you on you're 7th point but that's because of rejecting God not because of sinning. Since they chose to reject God, and then sin, they got punished.

They did not sin and get punished bad, they rejected God and got punished bad adding the sin, which made it worse. Also, most Christian books I've read find that the "Ultimate" choice is if you reject God or not. All the other sins are also choices but the ultimate choice is not a sin aince God presents it to us.

Only the ultimate choice is truly what God gives us. "For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone who purports to be a Christian can say that rejecting Christ is not a sin", I think that you are not one to judge me and how God judges us is the most important. I think that's not right for you to judge me in a debate and that is unfair to all. Also rejecting God is not a sin, since God gives it to us.

I don't care how many sins you list that God says will be eternally lost, it is the ultimate decision that will get you eternally lost and that is why you would do those sins. I also think I have made it clear that if you reject God will be eternally lost. I also made it clear that it is not you're sins that make you eternally lost, it is our ultimate choice that will cause it. Also thank you for this debate, I really wished it had a longer time limit because there's lots of pressure. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
annanicole

Pro

Thanks for your reply. I'm not quite sure I understand it, so I will point out what I view as inconsistencies:

1. I asked, "Ok, if one (a saved person) simply exercises this choice to quit believing and becomes an atheist and dies an atheist - is he still saved?" Your answer: "No."

Well, all he did was exercise his choice. So this man (1) once was saved, (2) decided for whatever reason to become an atheist, and (3) became lost, with you as the witness. The proposition reads, "A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost." And you denied it. And, the best I can tell, you're total negative argument is that the man, in exercising his right to become an atheist, committed no sin in doing so. Well, suppose he becomes and atheist at midnight and dies at 1 AM and didn't commit any sins in that hour, would that work?

2. "Since they chose to reject God, and then sin, they got punished."

Suppose they reject God and do not sin, then what? As per your view, you can't send 'em to heaven because they rejected God. And you can't send 'em to hell because they didn't sin. Of course, the proposition reads, "A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost." You say: "they chose to reject God and then sin, they got punished." That's awfully close to an affirmation of the proposition - not a denial.

3. "The Bible says that this choice whether to serve him or not is not a sin." True, the mere existence of the choice is in no way a sin. It is the exercise of this choice that could be the sin, if one chooses to reject or forsake God.

4. "Forsaking is more of an abandonment issue. Rejecting is more of "I don't want or need you" kind of thing." The difference, for our purposes, is the difference between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. If a person forsakes God, God will forsake him.

5. "that his case proves nothing becaue there was no Jesus and the basis of right and wrong were the conscience." It certainly proves it by example. The basis of right or wrong was not the conscious. The basis was the Law of Moses in Exodus 20, especially the ten commandments. Saul broke quite a few of them. No, there was no Jesus; I never said there was. Saul simply serves as an example for us.

6. "I don't care how many sins you list that God says will be eternally lost" For the purposes of this debate, neither do I: it could be one or a thousand. Either way, I have proven my case, with you as my best witness.

You have already consented that believers, Christians, may sin and ultimately be lost. "Ok, if one simply exercises this choice to quit believing and becomes an atheist and dies an atheist - is he still saved?" Your answer is: "No." Well, then this saved person did SOMETHING and wound up lost, didn't he? What are you debating anyway?

As I said, and correct me if I'm wrong, your entire debate is not whether a child of God can be saved, then lost. You admit this is possible, then claim the person went from "saved" to "lost" and did not sin - or if he did, the sin didn't cause him to be lost. Well, what did, then? Actions are merely expressions of thoughts. What did you say about, ""But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5: 28)? Not one word. Why? Because the person merely THOUGHT about it, and Jesus is saying it is the SAME THING. According to you, thinking about it is no problem until you really get down to business and physically sin. Rejecting God is not a sin, according to you. Well:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6: 5). I suppose "rejection of Christ" would be a "thought of the heart", wouldn't it? Well, it's evil, isn't it. But according to you, it's "evil" yet it's not a "sin"?

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man" Matt 15: 19-20. It's amazing that "evil thoughts" is grouped right in there with "adulteries" and "murders", but according to you, rejecting Christ isn't even a sin. Yet they "defile a man" just the same.

"I can't understand how anyone who purports to be a Christian can say that rejecting Christ is not a sin", I think that you are not one to judge me." Oh, I'm not at all judging you as a person. I'm "judging" your con position, and finding it to be contrary to God's Word and contrary to sound logic.

I'll stop there, and await your reply.
Viper-King

Con

1. He exercised his choice of rejecting God which is not a sin. I will say that no one can judge him so I don't know if he would be saved but since he has made the personal choice to reject God, only God can determine his salvation status. I obviously deny you're contention since I'm Con and my contention has been that the choice to ultimately reject God is what makes us eternally lost since the choice to reject God is not a sin. So my answer would be that no one can judge him and no one including me can tell if he was saved or not but I do believe that God is a good God and would judge fairly especially since choosing to accept or reject him isn't a sin. I think that since rejecting God is what makes you eternally lost, he would be eternally lost but no one can judge.

2. You put words in my mouth. The choice to reject God is not a sin but it is what makes you eternally lost. My resolution is "A saved person, a Christian, makes the ultimate choice whether to reject to accept God which will determin his salvation status." That is absolutely different. Again, no one can judge but according to my contention, the decision to reject God is what makes them eternally lost. Therefore this is not an affirmation but instead a totally different idea.

3. No. God gave us this freedom to ultimately choose if we reject him or not which is why it is not a sin. The exercising of this is a God-given right.

4. What is you're point. I showed that forsaking and rejecting are totally different things and you're refutation is that "The difference for our purposes, is the difference between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum." You have no refutation except saying without any back-up that they're the same thing as "tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum". I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection.

5. The Law had many flaws and in the Bible, Jesus himself pointed it out that the Law if flawed because it was only the rules and restrictions without anything that could help you to do it. Today, the Holy Spirit empowers us to do so. The Law is flawed which means that the basis of right and wrong was flawed and "every man did as his own will".

6. No you haven't, you have failed to prove that the sins are what makes you eternally lost, however I have proven that it is rejecting God that will make you eternally lost and that choice is not a sin.

7. "You have already consented that believers, Christians, may sin and ultimately be lost." No, I have not. "Ok, if one simply exercises this choice to quit believing and becomes an atheist and dies an atheist - is he still saved?" Your answer is: "No." Well, then this saved person did SOMETHING and wound up lost, didn't he?" Yes!! Not because of his sin, but because of his choice to reject God and I have further proven that rejecting God is not a sin. "What are you debating anyway?" Obviously he is not sinning by rejecting God. I am debating that rejecting God is not a sin and that is what makes you eternally lost.

8. "As I said, and correct me if I'm wrong, your entire debate is not whether a child of God can be saved, then lost. You admit this is possible, then claim the person went from "saved" to "lost" and did not sin - or if he did, the sin didn't cause him to be lost. Well, what did, then?" The choice to reject God made him lost not his sins. That choice was not a sin as I've proven. "Actions are merely expressions of thoughts. What did you say about, ""But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5: 28)? Not one word. Why? Because the person merely THOUGHT about it, and Jesus is saying it is the SAME THING." So? What's you're point. This is one instance where God says that lusting is a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that rejecting God is a sin. "This is that thinking about it According to you, thinking about it is no problem until you really get down to business and physically sin." I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth again.

9. You give a verse from the story of Noah's ark and they were evil. They rejected God. But the rejecting of God is not the thought of the heart. This was that they were sinning. They would go to hell for rejecting God but God decided to wipe them out because their sin was so great that the Lord couldn't stand it anymore. I would not say that rejecting God is evil.

10. Yes. Evil thoughts are sin but the rejecting of Christ is not because the Lord gave us this choice.

11. You are criticizing my position and saying that it is against the Lord's Word and sound logic when I have proven that the rejecting of God is what takes us to hell and that is not a sin.

I have successfully refuted my opponent's attacks and have attacked her case successfully.
Debate Round No. 4
annanicole

Pro

1. Concerning Saul, you say, "So my answer would be that no one can judge him." Well, the Spirit departed from him, God became his enemy, the Lord departed from him, he committed suicide - but you still aren't sure. OK, I can accept that you do not know - which was your first response: you said, "I honestly do not know..." Now you've moved forward to: "No one can judge him". That's a shade different, and I submit that you do not know that to be the case. Just because you do not know in no way implies that no one else can. Most scholars do not question that King Saul was ultimately lost, but they are divided on his initial salvation.

2. "He exercised his choice of rejecting God which is not a sin." You continually assert that rejecting God is not a sin, but you have yet to prove it. Your proof is your assertion. Who said "rejecting God is not a sin?" You and no one else. More on that later.

3. You: "I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection."

Is it? "Forsake" (Gr. egkataleip��) simply means to "totally abandon, desert" (Thayer's Lexicon), while "reject" (Gr. atheteo) means "to despise and set aside." (Thayer's Lexicon) Your position is that one can "despise and set aside God" and, in so doing, did not sin. I said the two words are shades of the same meaning, and they are: "totally abandon, desert, set aside". What's the difference? Not a bit! In fact, if you'll kindly take a look at the word "defection" at Thesaurus.com, you will see that the definition is "abandonment", and the synonyms, s-y-n-o-n-y-m-s, include ... what? ... both "rejection" and "forsaking." Yet you stand up against two words used as synonyms for "defection" and declare, "I don't care if you forsake God and he forsakes you because it's a totally different thing than rejection." Totally different, eh? I said they were shades of the same concept; you denied it; and I've proved it.

5. You say, "The Law is flawed which means that the basis of right and wrong was flawed and "every man did as his own will"." Well, you place the "every man did his own will" in quotes, but I fail to see a reference. You say, "The Law is flawed", and further define "flawed" as "the basis of right and wrong was flawed." Well, the cornerstone of the Mosaic Law was the Ten Commandments written by God on Sinai - yet you claim the "basis was all wrong." Tell us, please: in what respect was the basis all wrong? Better yet, tell us who caused it to be wrong - since God authored it.

6. "I have proven that it is rejecting God that will make you eternally lost and that choice is not a sin." I call upon you to prove that "rejecting God is not a sin." You made the assertion; now take the Bible and prove it. It is a mere unsubstantiated play on words, and the theory goes that when a person rejects God, he then necessarily sins, so there you are. I asked him if a person could reject God and not sin. No answer. It's six of one, and half-a-dozen of the other.

7. "But the rejecting of God is not the thought of the heart." Well, now we have it: "rejection" is neither a thought nor an action. Do tell, WHAT is it? I was under the vague impression that the vast majority of human activity is either a "thought" or an "action", but now you have discovered a third category, "rejection" (which is neither a thought nor an action). What in the world is it, then? Why do you not give us a positive, plain, declarative definition of "rejection" in a way that it is neither a "thought" nor an "action"? I submit that you can't do it. The challenge is yours.

8. "I would not say that rejecting God is evil." I know what you say: "rejection isn't evil, rejection isn't a sin, rejection isn't a thought" - but have you noticed that you've yet to tell us what it IS? You specialize by telling us all the things it isn't, and by the time you're done, "rejection" really isn't anything. It's not a thought, an action, a sin, evil, or anything else. And I await your analysis of why "rejection" and "forsaking" are synonyms for "defection". You've drawn an imaginary distinction between the two.

9. "Evil thoughts are sin but the rejecting of Christ is not because the Lord gave us this choice." Here's your reasoning:

"We have a choice of whether to reject Christ or not."
"The Lord gave us this choice."
"Since the choice came from the Lord, it is not a sin."

The fact that there IS a choice is not a sin, per se, but do you not see that I could prove rape and murder are not sins by the same logic?

"We have a choice of whether to rape and murder."
"The Lord gave us this choice."
"Since the choice came from the Lord, it is not a sin."

Want to see it applied to the mental rather than physical?

"We have a choice of whether to look upon a woman and lust."
"The Lord gave us this choice."
Since the choice came from the Lord, it is not a sin."

Don't you see, sir, that your own logic turns against you? By your logic, I could prove every sin under the sun is NOT a sin because God gave us a choice in the matter. The trouble: your logic on the matter is flawed to start with. The very fact that there is a choice is supportive of my concept, not yours. Every sin is a choice, isn't it? I ask you to name one that isn't.

10. In reference to Matt 5: 28 - "looking on a woman to lust", you ask, "So? What's you're point. This is one instance where God says that lusting is a sin." This is the point: whether the person committed any specific physical act or not, just the thought was the sin - that's what the point is. If a person forsakes God, rejects God, defects from God, abandons God, or whatever, the thought process alone desertion is not a sin, but the conclusion - rejection and desertion - is. Yet stand up and say, "No, it's not, but it might result in a sin."

I will point out the latter part of Rom 14: 23, " ... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Alrighty, is your contention that "rejecting God" is (1) "of faith" or (2) "not of faith." Certainly if you say "rejecting God" is "not of faith", then I'll reply that it is sin - and away with your contention.

And James 2: 17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Is "rejecting God" good? How about "not rejecting God"? Would that be "good"? If so, I'll insert it, "To him that knoweth to 'not reject God', and doeth it not, (i. e., double-negative: does reject God), to him it is sin."

11. "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Yet you say, "When I have proven that the rejecting of God is what takes us to hell and that is not a sin." Your sins separated you from God, but rejecting God causes eternal separation, yet it's not a sin? Shades of old Aristostle! According to you, sin isn't even what lands a person in hell.

12. "God gave us this freedom to ultimately choose if we reject him or not which is why it is not a sin. The exercising of this is a God-given right." Correct to the 2nd sentence, but technically, the choice to commit adultery is a God-given right. I have that choice, do I not? But according to you, "this freedom to ultimately choose = why it is not a sin." Again, tell us exactly what sin is NOT a choice. I'd like to see a list.

To summarize, con's contention on the proposition is over the word "sin" - that's all it amounts to. He asserts that "rejecting God" and "forsaking God" are "totally different things", despite the fact that they are synonyms for the same word, "defection". He attempts this maneuver to escape the force of certain passages. He asserts, without foundation, that the total defection from, desertion of, and rejection of God is not a sin, but, in so doing, he must claim that "rejection of God" is "of faith" because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." I maintain that his hands are tied on that verse alone.

Thanks. I wait your negation.
Viper-King

Con

1. I think that no one can judge him and I honestly don't know. I belive that there is no one that can judge his salvation status but for me, personally, I have no idea. I think that no one has a right to judge including you but I don't know if he was saved or not.

2. I have proved that God never said anything that was similar to rejecting God a sin. I have also proved that rejecting or accepting God is the ultimate choice in which God gives us the freedom to choose and rejecting God is what causes us to be eternally lost. Who are you to say that I am the only one who says that? You definitely are not anyone to say that especially since it's not true.

3-4. They are absolutely different. I have yet to bring up that my opponent brings up new arguments. At first, you say that rejecting and forsaking are not synonyms and now you say that you are? You have switched you're arguments in the last round which is absolutely wrong. My opponent brings up defection which has nothing to do with our argument and if anything it is a new argument. Also forsaking and rejecting are entirely different things as you admittedd to already and now you're changing you're story. First, just because rejection and forsaking are synonyms of defection does not mean that rejection and forsaking are synonyms. Both of them are not shades of the same idea but absolute different ideas. They are different as I've proved so.

5. The Law was flawed as it says in the New Testament. Also the Bible says many times that everybody did what they wanted according to their own will while since the basis of right and wrong was flawed, there was truly now law that could determine salvation. I will say that Jesus himself stated that it was not right and that we should instead follow his law. Why it was wrong was because it was rules and regulations without any empowerment to do what was right.

Ex: There are two houses. 1 house has a "Don't throw rocks" Sign while the other is a normal house. Which house will have houses thrown onto it first? Obviously the house with the sign. The Law just made the aggression to sin stronger rather than a solution.

6. I have proven it. The theory is that God has never said it is a sin and I have shown that rejecting God is not a sin and I have said that rejecting God is not a sin. You're illustration is false since it has nothing in common.

7. Exactly. When did I say rejection is not an action? You're putting words in my mouth again. It is an action not a 3rd category. What do you submit I can't do? A 3rd category for rejection? I don't intend to do so. I have justified rejection is an action but not a sin.

8. I've said it! Where in the world have I said it is not an action? Rejection is the act of denying God from our lives. That's what it is. There is a distinction and you've admitted it several times. Just because they're both synonyms of something doesn't mean they're synonyms. It'd be like saying dropping a hammer is synonyms with kill because they're synonymns of shot.

9. Rape and murder are sins because the Bible says so. Also my reasoning is that God has never said we can't do so. It is a God-given choice and he gives us the libebrty to use it. No it doesn't because all of the things you've said are against the Bible. God gives us this choice because the Bible says nothing about it and in many cases has allowed/given them this particular freedom.

10. The Bible has not said that rejection from him is a sin and I have refuted all things that you believe are similar. Since God gave us the faith to reject him, we can which means we can do so. Rejecting God is not a sin. You are adding things to the Bible. I would say that this choice is a hard one. And who knows if it is good or bad? How do you define good?

11. Exactly. Sin doesn't cause eternal separation, the choice to reject God does. Sin is not what takes us to my hell, my friend. The choice to reject God does.

12. But the Bible is against adultery. I understand what you mean but instead it is "freedom to ultimately choose without being against the Bible = why it is not a sin".

To summarize, I basically refuted my opponent's arguments successfuly and reiterated my arguments greatly. I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
The comments section was more interesting than the actual debate.
Posted by Callen13 4 years ago
Callen13
Matthew 12:32 "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," (All Scripture quotes are from the NASB)."

If a Chrisian would speak a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit they would be eternally lost no matter what.
Posted by Viper-King 4 years ago
Viper-King
PLease vote.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
@ Zaradi: You say, "As for looking for a loophole, it's called critical argumentation. Examining the resolution for flaws that inherently always make it false. Look it up and actually familiarize yourself with debate arguments instead of just complaining"

Well, "looking for a loophole" before the debate ever starts is "critical assessment". You understand the concept, for in your own debates, you make the special plead:

"No semantics. Please, we all understand what the resolution really means. If I have to go through the resolution and define every syllable, I will. But I would rather not do that."

That's correct. I understood what your proposition meant and the intent of the debate. And, if I were unclear, this comment section exists for clarification before clicking "accept." You understand that, hence you say "Please, we all understand ..." And indeed we do. When it's your own debate, you invoke "generality" and "the spirit of the debate" (which is fine): ""Please, we all understand ..." When it's someone else's debate, you invoke "looking for a loophole" aka "critical argumentation" and a "valid technique." The legs of the lame are not equal, are they? It just sorta depends on the topic and who's debating.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
@Ahmed

"Religion is one of the most important if not the most important topic in this entire website."

If we're judging what is the most important topic based on FORUM ACTIVITY, then mafia would be the most important thing to everyone. I just don't believe this line of thinking. But secondly, discussion over things in forums does not equate the debate popularity, as the forums and debate aspects of the webste are two entirely seperate entities. The forums aren't a part of the debate, just as the debates aren't a part of the forums.

"The fact that you speak that way shows your resentment and hatred towards it"

You don't know me. Don't be assuming things about me. I don't hate Christianity, or any religion for that matter.Just because someone doesn't believe in something, it doesn't automatically mean they hate it. THAT is just intolerant.

"annanicole is clearly looking for theological debates..."

I agree, but how is the existance of God or Hell not theological? And I don't see why we have to accept the Bible as fact without reason to believe the Bible is fact. That's just like saying I have to accept anything on youtube as fact, just 'cuz. It makes no sense, and there's no justifiation to it.

@anna:

I'm not even going to bother adressing that. It literally makes zero sense and isn't at all how things are. As the vast majority of this site ISN'T religious, the only real religious debates that happen are if God exists or not. As for looking for a loophole, it's called critical argumentation. Examining the resolution for flaws that inherently always make it false. Look it up and actually familiarize yourself with debate arguments instead of just complaining how you didn't get your way like a five year old.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
Ahmed, I'll tell ya how they look at it: if a Christian is debating an atheist - which has occurred hundreds of times - these few look upon it as the only worthwhile "religious" endeavor as you quoted: "except to explain how much sh1t it holds." They think that's the purpose of a "religious" section on a debate site: to refute religion! If two Christians are debating theological positions, they view it as inappropriate on a religious section of a debate site. Thus, the trolling. They'll look around for a loophole in the proposition and/or the definition, then say, "The Bible doesn't teach anything" or "There is no God or hell" and purposefully never approach the theological gyst of the proposition. In so doing, they are unwittingly disproving "survival of the fittest" because presumably the most mentally/physically fit should survive, while the retards/couch potatoes die off.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
"You want to know why they're never finished, are 'trolled and get ran by word games'? Because no one gives a sh1t about religion on this site except to explain how much sh1t it holds. If you want to seriously debate religious topics, you're on the wrong site."

You are speaking for no one but your own self. Religion is one of the most important if not most important topics in this entire website. If you go to the religion forum it much more active than forums such as Science and Technology and are even popular than politics. People will always struggle to find the meaning of their life and inevitably Religion comes into play. The fact you speak that way shows your resentment and hatred towards it, then you later complain that religious people are intolerant when you are clearly showing it now!

Also the Christian, annanicole is clearly looking for theological debates within Christianity. Therefore, it is completely unnecessary to debate the existence of God and Hell since both Debators must already accept it as true (at least in the debate).
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
No, you really aren't. But I'm done trying to convince you to a) actually listen and b) convince you that Dakota's arguments were legitimate arguments because you clearly don't listen.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
"I doubt that you will believe us, but I thought that I would just add my input." Oh, I believe you: it's hard to swallow that one can be in consent to, agree with, and accept a definition as TRUE, then imply or state that it's FALSE or at least unproven. I've asked "Why accept a debate when you basically deny every definition of every key word - deny God, deny saved, deny lost, deny hell, and deny heaven? - yet say, 'I accept your definitions' "?

I am listening: it's permissable to accept "A unicorn can outeat a talking turtle" and accept "A unicorn is a one-horned horse" and "A talking turtle is a speaking terrapin". I can accept and consent to all that, then when we get down to debating, I can say, "Screw it, there's no such thing as unicorns or talking turtles." I suppose I could do that and be ok, but I don't know why I'd bother.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Fvck it. I give up. She refuses to listen to a single word I'm saying. Guess she doesn't need help then. Sorry for trying to be a good person and attempting to solve a dispute. Won't happen again.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
annanicoleViper-KingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was more convincing in his refutation of Pro's claims.