The Instigator
Moroni23
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Are we really saved by grace alone?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,341 times Debate No: 12041
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

Moroni23

Con

You claim that the Book Of Mormon is inaccurate because It states we are not saved by grace alone. My opening argument includes the simple question. Is God really that injust? Do you really believe that you can live your life In complete disobedience? And be saved simply because you say you believe in Jesus? The thought of it is absurd. Somebody who has devoted his whole life in keeping the commandments will be sharing his eternity in a heaven full of people who have disobeyed the law, however they were saved simply by grace alone.
Marauder

Pro

The resolution "are we really saved by grace alone", So I am assuming the core contention is whether or not it would be just for God to make that the criteria for entrance to heaven. Heaven being left loosely defined as "that good place where we want to go after judgment day" seeing as any more specific would not be common ground for our two religions.
some further more important definitions
Saved by Grace: Jesus sacrifice paying your ransom
Saved by works: Good behavior that is consistent with Gods commandments.

My opponent wishes for you all to think that it is absurd that he would share residence in heaven with people who believe in Jesus and live sinful lives. I shall proceed to show you it is not so absurd. First off.....
--------------------
Keeping the Law:
--------------------
If my opponent wishes to think he himself keeps this Law, to love his neighbor, to watch what comes off his tongue, ect... he of course can keep on thinking this but he is fooling himself. I will be the first to admit in this debate that I fail to always do what I know is right. Sometimes I provide my self long list of excuses when the temptations to break the law would come, like 'its just my personal problem it doesn't hurt anybody' and of course this excuse doesn't justify it. Though I can see that clearly now, in the moment of temptation is very hard to care enough to see it doesn't justify it. You truly have to give it your all at resisting temptation to sin to understand how very hard it is. if you do not try all that hard than it will always be on the back of your mind, 'well, if I had just gave a little more effort I wouldn't have done thing I wast supposed to do' But the degree of temptation you experienced would have increased proportionately to the degree you gave your effort. when you try harder it gets harder. Satan has been at doing this job for a long time and has gotten quite good at it. It should not be surprising that fighting temptation is a little more complicated than ignoring a mild animal impulse.
At the moment I am mostly talking about people yet to have Christ in there lives, but this is an important concept to work from as a foundation, No one keeps the law, all have fallen short. And thus all need a solution to making amends for the wrong they have wrought.
----------------
The Solution:
----------------
The great thing that makes Christianity unique among the religions is that there is a real solution offered. You see it is not as simple as doing a good deed to counter your every bad one, for justice still needs to served for the bad that has been done. The power does not exist for us to do it ourselves. a penalty must be paid.
about 2000 years ago just such a penalty was paid, Jesus the Christ died on a cross for our sins to be paid for and thus we can be redeemed in his blood. Theirs little since in not accepting it, he paid the price whether or not we choose to accept, so its not like we save him any trouble by ignoring the gift of being redeemed.
----------------------
Now I know this should all be review for my opponent, His religious views and mine are consistent for the most part as far as I know about what happened on the cross and how that affects us. On to the pertinent points for this debate....
----------------------
For that sacrifice to really matter, it of course crosses over time and was not limited to the instant in time that Jesus died on the cross. His ransom did not just pay for the sins of the people alive that day for the sins they committed that day. To give us any hope it paid for them across time, forward and back. This is not a surprising occurrence considering God is an eternal being. So when you accept that sacrifice, it covers all the sins you have committed, and will commit.
Either that sacrifice cleaned you of your sins or it did not. But if it can be said to have done so at all then their is no room for 'additional' justification to ensure you are judged in good light enough to not go to Hell on judgment day. That is done and taken care of. To suggest there is something additional left undone that your fate of if you go to heaven or not rest on is the absurd one, as it suggest that sacrifice was not good enough to cross over the boundaries of time. If it did not then we are not saved by believing in Christ, he will need to die a second time for us.

Do not get me wrong about the importance of good works, of keeping Gods laws as opposed to maintaining a sinful lifestyle, it is still important. It is important in the consequences of doing so while your still alive as well that the specific nature of how god will reward you once in heaven. All the residents of Heaven will not be in the same exact situation once their, and their is no reason to think otherwise. My opponent seems to think it absurd to share residency with sinful people who accepted Christ, as if the very notion suggest they get treated the same for acting in a less superior way. but in order to find this absurd you have to make that leap that heaven is just some kind of static (unchanging) state of bliss, that reacts the same for all who enter just like entering a steam room will warm all who enter just the same.
----------------------
So to sum up; I have provided two points of contention.
----------------------
1) The sacrifice covers sins across time, to continue to believe in the sacrifice without believing that is absurd
2) In order for it to be unfair for shared residence in heaven with two people who behaved in different degrees of obedience to be absurd requires heaven be by definition the same for all who are there.

I would like to request of my opponent to tell how much he would consider scripture verses from any book in Old Testament, New Testament, or even the Apocrypha (inter-testament). I understand him not quoting from the book of Mormon as that is not common agreed upon ground for us, but the Mormon church still holds that these scriptures are divinely inspired too don't they? Even if you say they are relevant to refer to for this debate I might not, I just want to know what room I have to work with for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Moroni23

Con

Here is the problem with modern christian Protestant church's, they read the bible and they interpret for themselves what it is to have suppose to mean. We have hundreds and hundreds of church's today all claiming they are the truth however non of them have to proper authority and power from God. Prophets knew this would come of the last days and they predicted it, these churches were prophesied to be an "abomination". The way i see it is their is either two true church's (if any) it is either the Mormons, or the Catholics. Either Christ set up his Church while he was on this earth, gave it all the authority from God, and the church never feel from this earth (Catholics)..... or their was an apostasy, the church and all its authority was taken from this earth, and God himself, with his son Jesus Christ, would of had to restore it once again upon this earth (Mormonism). Their is no place from protestant, or "Christians" as they call themselves, to fit. Protestants fell away from the Catholic church with absolutely no guidance from God, they simply did it on their own starting their own religions. Hebrews 5:4 God warns "And NO MAN taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

The reason i say this is because the idea we are saved by "grace alone" has derived from a Protestant, with no guidance from God, Taking this honour completely unto themselves, they read this verse and proposed this idea... Ephesians 2:8-9. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." They took this verse to mean what modern day "Christians" heavily believe, that we are saved by grace(faith) alone, and not by works. Ironically if they simply continued to read they would find in verse 10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus 'unto good words', which God hath before dained that 'we should walk in them'. Now it seems that we have ourselves a contradiction. We have one verse here distinctly telling us we are saved by grace, and not works, and then the very next verse tells us we are Gods workman and we must walk in good works in order to be saved. Here are multiple other verses that show we are in fact saved by works, and not by grace alone.
2 Peter 3:15-17
James 2:14-26
Mathew 5:20, 12:33-37, 16:27, 7:21-27, 7:14
Luke 6:46-48, 8:11-13
John 5:28-29, 14:15, 21, 15:13-14, 3:5, 17:3
Rev. 3:15-16, 20:12-13, 22:12-15
Acts 55:32, 10:34-35
Romans 2:5-13, 6:6-23, 2:5-13
2 Cor. 5:8-9
Heb. 5:8-9, 6:4-6
James 2:13-26, 4:17
1st John 3:15, 2:3-5
2 Thess 1:7-8
2 Pet. 2:20-22
Cor. 12:3
Philp. 2:12-15

So because of this contradiction we find, either the bible is inaccurate, or their needs to be some Devine interpretation to help man understand the verses true meaning. I however am fortunate enough to have the Book Of Mormon, witch helps clear up this contradiction.
2 Nephi 2:5-9
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they aknow good from evil. And the blaw is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is cjustified; or, by the law men are dcut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.
6 Wherefore, aredemption cometh in and through the bHoly cMessiah; for he is full of dgrace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a asacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto bnone else can the cends of the law be answered.
8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, asave it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who blayeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the cresurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make aintercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved. (http://scriptures.lds.org...)

Here we find out that Grace, is Jesus Christ himself! Jesus Christ is Grace. So now we reread that verse that modern day Christians based their theory off.
"For by 'Jesus Christ' are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Jesus is the gift of God)" The verse isn't saying you are saved by "faith" it is saying you are saved by Jesus, that no matter who you are, no matter what you do, you will be resurrected, its your free gift, and it is threw your works, threw the things you have done on this earth, that the rest of your eternity depends on.

The whole reason this debate started was because you used the "evidence" that the Book of Mormon is false because it teaches you are not saved by grace. That is completely inaccurate. It teaches you are saved by grace, everybody is saved by grace (Jesus). But you are not saved by Grace alone, you are saved threw your works and noted in the many verses i posted eaerlyer.
Marauder

Pro

Well, I must say I was initially impressed to see such a large variety of scriptures from the books we both agree on being offered for your case, until I started reading them. To be honest I didn't look up each and every one of them after I saw you clearly saw fit to quote mostly scriptures about false prophets, teaches, that sin is bad and ignorant people who twist scriptures. I could easily use the same ones as an argument against Mormonism, and by all means most apologist do claiming the archangel ‘moroni' was none other than Lucifer himself, quoting scriptures out of 1 John. If I end up missing any that actually have to do with ‘works' and ‘salvation' then please do bring them up a second time and specify.

For now though I will address the ones I knew to look into because there being sighted in debates dealing with topics like this one or Christian sanctification, and those are the ones from James and Romans. James is the hardest to theologically deal with, so hard in fact that Martin Luther himself wanted it removed from the bible. But I'm going to start with Romans.

You sighted Romans 2:5-13; twice for some reason. This chapter does indeed talk about God judging people for there sin/righteousness. Now if you feel like reading it context keep reading from there on, your just getting to the good part. Romans is perhaps the most drawn upon book when it comes to witnessing to unbelievers, so much that they sometimes call the path of a individual from sinner to mature christian to glorification in gods kingdom ‘the romans road' http://www.allaboutgod.com... you may have seen something labeled that before lying around in a hotel or public bathroom sink or at the laundry matt. They use this book because Paul writings kind of walk through the stages of a Christians life in chronological order in this book. Chapter 1 is an introduction and slowly leads into preaching about how Gods anger at sin. Chapter two is of the appropriate judgment that comes with the sin and righteousness going out of its way to point out this goes for both Jew and Gentile. Then rounds off teaching about the Law and the Jews relationship with it. Chapter 3 transitions from this topic strait into grace alone teaching by verse 9
"Well then, should we conclude that we Jews are better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin. As the scriptures say, ‘No one is righteous, not even one. No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away…..No one does good, not a single one….'….Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are."

Paul was pretty adamant there in making it clear to the church in Rome that they are not right with god on there own attempts to keep the law. The law only shows how guilty they are. Now that would be a really somber tone to end a message with, but this isn't even the end of chapter 3 and there's 16 in all in this book. He then proceeds at verse 21 to tell of how Christ died for us, how his sacrifice makes us right with God, and the rest of this chapter deals with that all the way into the chapter 5. At 6 Paul starts in on spiritual growth. By chapter 8 it gets to glorification.

Sometimes James is preached about like its pitted against Romans because before you had scripture that was unquestionable stressing your saved by faith and not works, and now you have a passage returning to speaking of works with importance and in contrast with a faith that has no good works. Note the careful wording James uses, "How can you show me your faith if you don't have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds" whether you are saved or not ‘on the inside' if your not producing any fruit of that salvation, of being reborn in Christ, other people such as me, or moroni, or paul will never know. We can not see your heart, we can only see your good deeds.
As James speaks of how your faith is dead and useless without works, it easy to see a connection hear with some of Jesus teachings in the Gospels Matthew 5:13-16. if salt has lost its saltiness what good is it, if light is under a bushel what good is it. Though you have faith and remain inactive what good are you for? If all that defines your faith is belief in God then you are no different from the demons, for they believe in him as much as you.
If your truly saved and have true faith, your supposed to want to do good works, so wake up thou sleeper and start living you new life! (Ephesians 5) When there is a clear absence of works in you it should cause us to wonder if you were ever truly saved from the start. Ultimately though were not your judge, but we do care for you, thus we try to ascertain just were you need help in spiritual growth in.

With that out of the way I should use what little room I have left to cover the rest of your case.

My opponents ignorant understanding of prodestant church history and even there currant situation is almost amusing. I don't have any-room to go over every denominations history so I will just tell you mine. The United Methodist church.
It starts with the formation of the Anglican church, http://en.wikipedia.org... witch is for all purpose are Catholics. there separation from the Roman Catholic church was for purely political reasons. King Henry VIII wanted his marriage annulled, the pope said know so he took matters into his own hands. He didn't start any knew teachings and kept prodestent teachings out of his church. So talking about the church of England is still talking about Catholics, just one that Henry could get his divorce in. change in politics not is spiritual matters.
One day there came a man by the name of John Wesley (1703–1791). He started 'the Methodist movement' within the Anglican church and tried to keep it there for the remainder of his life, and never did leave the Anglican church contrary to popular belief. it was called the Methodist movement because John Wesley, Charles Wesley, and George Whitefield were branded 'Methodist' as a joke for there methodical approach to bible study and christian living. Wesley saw a need for Christians to have a more structured form they could apply in there life the faith they were learning that's in the bible. though they might go to church each Sunday it just not carrying home in the way they live every other day of the week.
He put a very strong emphasis on christian perfection, teaching for years about how important your works are. He was trying to earn his own salvation. this wasn't working out so well for him though, he must have thought he had sinned in some way against god I guess for in one of his letters Wesley wrote 'I went to America to convert the Indians; but O! who shall convert me?' But the on the famous visit to Alders-gate street http://www.ccel.org... his heart was 'strangely warmed' and he first truly believed that Christ saved not just the world for there sin but his too!
During the American revolution all ties to England were cut off, and the church of England was in tight position. with the leadership of Francis Ashbery The Methodist church was formed. You see this is not because he decided to start his own church for the sake of saying we know better than you, it was really an accident.

to briefly address the many divisions of prodestant churches, though we all have peculiar niches of different beliefs like full immersion baptism or speaking in tongs importance, we are all still preaching the same message along with the catholic church in the essentials of the faith.
In essentials unity, non essentials liberty, all things love--martin luther.
Debate Round No. 2
Moroni23

Con

"I saw you clearly saw fit to quote mostly scriptures about false prophets, teaches, that sin is bad and ignorant people who twist scriptures." I found this quite amusing because obviously you didn't read any of the verse I posted. "If I end up missing any that actually have to do with ‘works' and ‘salvation' then please do bring them up a second time and specify." Yes, you did ‘miss any that actually have to do with works and salvation', all of them. I will simply start with the second I quoted and work my way one by one threw the first six. I will not start with the first because that wasn't dealing with faith and works, it was dealing with the topic I posted earlier, protestants will read verses from the Bible and take upon them their own meaning because they have no real direction and guidance from God.

----------------

James 2:14-26 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?... Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yeah a man may say thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." Clearly this verse is explaining without a doubt that a man without works is ‘dead', that you are in no way saved only by faith. It even shows a dialogue between a man who believes he is saved by faith (pro) and a man who believes he is saved by works (con). I will put this is more modern day English so it will be easier to understand.
Con- You have faith? Well I have works, show me your faith without any works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Mathew 5:20 "For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." By ‘righteousness', Jesus means, those who keep his commandments and do his works, those who are morally upright; without guilt or sin (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Jesus tells us in this verse very specifically, that if you are not righteous, if you are not keeping the commandments, and living a life of moral, then in NO CASE, will you enter into the kingdom of heaven, certainly not if you simply say ‘I believe'.

Mathew 7:21 "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Again obviously those who saith unto him (Jesus) "Lord, Lord" (they believe he is the messiah, they address him as Lord) will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, only those who DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER (A.K.A keep his commandments).

Mathew 7:24-26 I'm sure you've heard of the story a wise man built his house upon a rock, a song I believe protestant church's sing during youth activities? I'm not sure, but anyways it's a parable Jesus taught directly about the issue of faith and works. "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock….. And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand…….. Great was the fall of it." Quite self explanatory, but for the sake of making my point clear… Jesus says that those who ‘heareth these sayings of mine (his words, his commandments), and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man' (there houses are built upon rock, they will be saved by the storms, A.K.A make it to heaven) and those who receive his word and do them not (those who believe in the Bible, but don't keep the commandments) are ‘foolish men' and great was their fall.

Luke 6:46-48 "And why call ye me, Lord Lord, and do not the things which I say? Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: (continues to reiterated this is the wise man who built his house upon a rock)" Basically why do you claim you believe in him when you don't exercise his works, those who do his works are wise men… who will be saved because there house are built on strong foundation.

Luke 8: 11-15 This is a parable Jesus taught about a man who believes he will be saved by works, and a man who believes he will be saved by grace, he states that the men who believe they are saved by faith, are lead by the Devil. (Verse 12) And that those who are on good ground are those who ‘heard his word, keep it (hearing about the commandments, and doing them, A.K.A, works) verse 15 .

----------------

I am not going to waste my time explaining each verse, you should of looked them up so I didn't have to waist so much time explaining: p. As you can see I started with the second verse I posted James 2:14-26, and I explained each one in numerical order according to what I posted, I stopped at Luke 8:11-13, you can look up the rest if you like, they continue to reiterate the point that you are saved in fact by works, and if you think you are saved by faith, you are a ‘foolish man' quoted by Jesus the Christ.

----------------

Now I will use what little time I have left to refute your rebuttal to my observation. "Ignorant understanding of prodestant church history and even there currant situation is almost amusing." That's funny because I find your explanation to be quite ‘amusing'. Most specifically how you defend your church's authority and power from God, by saying your church was "really an accident." Tell me, do you believe in Jesus the Christ? I'm assuming yes. Ephesians 4:3-23 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." There is ONLY one church on this planet that is the true church and being John 3:5 "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he CANNOT (not cap. In actually verse but did so in quote to reiterate my point) enter into the kingdom of God." You have to be baptized into this one true church if you ever want to enter into the kingdom of God. Now If Jesus Christ was the true messiah he would of either set up that one true Church during his ministry, giving it all the power and authority to act in Gods name (the priesthood). Now either that church that Christ set up, never left the face of the Planet (Catholics), if it is still being lead directly by God himself, then any church who fell away, or simply started because of ‘accident' does not have the power and authority given to them directly from Jesus Christ himself. It's simple, if Jesus Christ set up the Catholic church, then any church fallen away from it, or that is currently not part of it for any reason (even being by accident), is not the true church set up by Christ. OR after the Crusifiction, all that power and authority left this earth, and NO church was the true church set up by Christ. Therefore this church would have had to be restored at a later date (Mormons). Jesus Christ visited Joseph Smith, along with Moroni, Peter, James, and John, and restored the priesthood upon the face of this earth to Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery, which was then handed down threw them directly from Jesus Christ himself, to me, and then all members who currently hold that Priesthood, making that church, the ONE true church.

----------------

I will end my side of the debate by saying this. I feel i have made it quite clear that you are not saved by grace alone, but you are saved by both. Any verse you show me saying you are saved by faith is absolutely true, but it is dangerous to misinterpreted these verses. You are saved by faith, but you are also saved by works. If a man thinks he is saved by faith, and not works, he is a fool.
Marauder

Pro

You see, viewing audience, even my opponent admitted he just threw some of those in there to imply insult towards my church and what they teach.
I could get in a scripture battle with you left and right if you desire, for I can add more like Matt 19: 16- 28 http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.biblicalhebrew.com... But this will quickly get us nowhere. If you wanted debate over different passages point by point I wish you would have stated so at the very start, for there Is little room for a full argument on every single passage. Obviously you feel the same since you did not address the central ones behind this debate that I brought up last round, So I will use my last round to focus on your appraisal of my church and the theological concept of saved by works a whole.

My point about it be an accident, a set of circumstances that made the independence of the American Methodist to break from the catholic church what needed to happen. They were not doing this for seizing power's sake, circumstances thrust it upon them to be on there own.
I also found your lack of response to Wesley's Aldergate experience a little disappointing. It pertains to the subject of this debate and if you don't find his experiences valid then you should not find the experiences of Joseph Smith to be valid either that made him see 'Moroni' and believe it was not the devil in disguise.
I agree there is one church. and believe or not I will not tell you its the Methodist. It shows how narrow your mind is of what a church is if you find that by denominations, only one can be the church referred to by Jesus. you should become acquainted with the term 'Ecumenical' if your going to continue participating in theological debates http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org...
The ecumenical body of Christ includes all denominations, Baptist, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Methodist, Catholics ect. They are only three denominations we Methodist believe are not included in this ecumenical body due to there departure from essentials in doctrine, those are Mormons (belief that you can be gods), Quakers (they do not baptize or take communion with any elements) and Jehovah Witnesses (their baptisms are not in the son, father, and holy spirit).

http://www.lifebeginsatconception.com... this link is on the full plan for you prerequisites to salvation. Repent; Believe; Be Baptized. (I sum it up in these, confession kind of goes hand in hand with repentance). Please do not misunderstand me when I say grace alone to mean you may embrace your sinful life still. For to repent literally translates to 'do a 180' 'to turn around' from your sins. But some have twisted this to mean it hinges upon your success in action from keeping yourself from sin. I have heard many baptist preachers say from the pulpit that 'your always going to sin some' largely out of the fact that from there experience to totally stop is proving to be impossible. Good as they normally are they keep messing up infrequently, backsliding http://en.wikipedia.org...
To Repent is not to claim 'if you ever sin again' you fail at repenting. The choice must be made by you to turn from sin, no longer do you romanticize it thinking 'I should steel that just to feel alive' justifying and accepting the life your in and that it will always be as good as that. To be saved make no mistake your still making a choice to do your best to no longer sin, and sin is no longer something you should even want. But it will be a long long time in your walk with Christ before the day comes that from then on you give into temptation no more. For many discipline is not as simple to acquire as just making a choice and instantly they have it. God understands this, but god does not give up on you still. He can make into the kind of christian you'd like to be if you let him. But as a prerequisite NO! It is absurd to believe so, if you believe as my opponent you will end up doing one of two things (just referring to believers here)
a) you will spend you whole life worrying if your doing good enough to be saved for though you have some good works, even many, you always seem to slip back into sin, and this makes you panic for you believe such slip-ups are going to cause eternal damnation for you.
b) you start deluding yourself that the sins you commit are not actually sins, you quite acknowledging the wrong things you have done as wrong. Jesus thinks this is bad http://www.biblegateway.com...

I apologize to the readers of this debate who think its clear my opponent and I are just talking past each other. I could not help this, for as I said there is not anywhere near the room even given an 8,000 character limit to argue each scripture passage so why even waist room trying. This debate didn't start with a resolve to better interpret scriptures in the fist place anyway, My opponents deceleration of intentions seem to desire addressing the concept of what is more right, more just, better to believe.
In respect to that, though my opponent may have forgotten to read anything I put in round one before, he has had plenty of time for doing so now and his only personal input remains what is seen in round 1, that it is indignant to share residence in heaven with people who have sinned. other than that it has been a continued appeal to spiritual authority in who's denomination is the 'true' church. He has also given no response to explaining how Jesus sacrifice can save you at all if it doesn't stretch across time to cover your sins you have not even committed yet, for than that means it doesn't stretch across time at all.
I on the other hand have repeatedly returned to addressing what the prerequisites for salvation are, and the reasons behind so, ranging beyond scripture but to experience as well. not just that of Wesley but any person alive. Try it for yourself, make the commitment to no longer sin, does your success at keeping true to that commitment just happen? How long does it take before you get the hang of it? In fact how long before you get the hang of it so much that you can say with great confidence that you have not sinned for at least 1000 day's, and that you know for sure that the next 1000 days will remain just as spotless?
I am not saying your lack of a spotless record makes you something to look down upon, or that you should not desire to go 1000 day without sin, But that experience tells us that we have to deal with the fact that weather you pray the 'sinners prayer' http://www.allaboutgod.com... with me or not today that we have to deal with the fact that you are not going be the disciple christian we all would like to be this day, or tomorrow, or even for the remainder of the year. Spiritual Growth takes time.

I have at least tried to not talk past my opponent whereas he apparently does not even need me to respond to post what he will. For all these reasons I urge you to vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stevencho 6 years ago
stevencho
Did I say we give trinity baptisms? No.

But all baptisms are in the name of God (Jehovah), his Son (Jesus), and the holy spirit (God's active force). Nothing about the trinity in there...
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
they are? just your particular church or all witnesses? why would you give a trinity baptism when you claim the teaching of the trinity is that of Satan?
Posted by stevencho 6 years ago
stevencho
Jehovah's Witnesses baptisms are in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.
Posted by Hurstman 6 years ago
Hurstman
Aww, well I'm going to continue to tell myself that I inspired this debate. =P
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Should I vote bomb Con the way he's vote bombed my debate? Hmm that is the question...
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
hurstman, you did not inspire this, Joseph Smith did when he wrote the book of mormon.
Posted by Hurstman 6 years ago
Hurstman
Did I inspire this? Lol, my personal opinion on this is NO
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
You didnt even read my argument.....?!? I feel so neglected....
(previous ment to be read in humor, following not so much)

I just checked in this site, it seems I have a day left, but Im going to need to use it, those are a lot of scripture verses you've given me to go look up. It looks like you do indead find the new testament relavent enough to draw from in theology and thats good since that gives us common ground. the book of mormon is the ground being contended sort of in this debate, though you did make the resolution specific enough to grace alone doctrine that one wouldnt even have to remember this started with a discussion about the book of mormon to debate it.
Posted by Moroni23 6 years ago
Moroni23
Oppps I posted my statement in round 2 before i read your retaliation to round 1. I apologize, like i said this is my first, I also apologize for quoting form the BOM, i just read your post that challenged me not to. But even if you don't use the verse i quoted we can both agree that grace is Jesus, so the verse is saying that we are saved by Jesus, not by faith alone.
Posted by Moroni23 6 years ago
Moroni23
Ok, and i apologize if I don't do this quite right. I know a lot about the topic, however this is my first time debating and my second or third time on this site. I'm still getting the hang of things.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Moroni23MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
Moroni23MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Moroni23 6 years ago
Moroni23
Moroni23MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Moroni23MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by zircle_of_life 6 years ago
zircle_of_life
Moroni23MarauderTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
Moroni23MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by jaweber1 6 years ago
jaweber1
Moroni23MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05