The Instigator
kohai
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Eternal Security

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 5 votes the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,100 times Debate No: 18327
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

kohai

Con

Full Resolution

It is impossible for a Christian to do anything that would send him to hell. This is known as "eternal security" or "once saved always saved" or as Calvinist say, "Preservation of sains."

It is my contention that the Bible does NOT teach the above resolution, but the EXACT OPPOSITE. I'd love for a Christian to prove me wrong on this assertion.

Rules

Round 1: Acceptance only.
Round 2: Opening statements, no rebuttals.
Round 3: Clash
Round 4: Clash/Closing statements

Voting

Voting period will last for 3 months.

Arguments

You will be alloted 72 hours (3 days) to post your arguments. You will also be alloted 8,000 characters.

Sources

Please do cite your sources.
wierdman

Pro

I accept the debate. I hopwe to have an excellent degbate experience as well as learn a couple of things in the course of the debate. Good luck and hope to recieve your argument soon.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate. I contend that Eternal Security is a false doctrine. Here are some Bible verses that CLEARLY contradict the resolution. Note that this is my first time doing a debate like this. I normally argue AGAINST the Bible, so this may be a challenge for me.


Mark 4:16, "And in a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately received it with joy (they believed for a while) and they have, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persectuion arises because of the word, immediately they fall away.

1. Immediately received it with joy; and
2. Believed for a while.

Notice that it says that they fell away from the word. To me, this indicates that they were saved, but then apostasized.


Galatians 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

If these were never Christians in the first place, how can they be severed from Christ? How can you "fall" from grace if you never had grace to begin with. If you cannot lose salvation, how can you fall from grace?

John 15:5-6 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Romans 11:19-23 "You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again."

"Broken off" indicates they were once saved.
This warns directly to the Christian Branches that were cut off.

2 Timothy 2:16-18, "But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are HYMENAEUS and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some."

1 Timothy 1:18-21 "fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are HYMENAEUS and Alexander"

Ezekiel 18:24-26 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die."

2 Peter 2:1. "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who brought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Let's take a closer look
denying the Master who bought them [with Jesus blood] 2 Peter 2:1
bringing swift destruction upon themselves [formerly saved] 2 Peter 2:1
elders of the church Acts 20:17
from among your own selves [elders] men will arise Acts 20: 28-30
gone astray from the faith [left faith they embraced] 1 Timothy 6:20-21


In Revelation, Jesus is talking to the Church, here is a chart of what he says:

Verse Why Jesus was angry they will lose salvation action they must take
Rev 2:4-5 left your first love you have fallen, Jesus will remove your lampstand unless you repent
Rev 3:16-17 you are lukewarm Jesus will spit you out of His mouth be zealous and repent


__________________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

"Can a Christian Lose His Salvation?" Interactive Bible Home Page Www.bible.ca. The Interactive Bible. Web. 13 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bible.ca...;.
wierdman

Pro

Thank you for posting your argument. I affirm that Eternal Security is a true diction and present in the bible. I can relate to you, this is my first time arguing against the bible (trying to challenge myself). I will use the basic debate format as well as try to incorporate my opponents format into my debate.

For clarity in the round: True Christian =Born again.

Case:


To properly understand this topic and its relativity to the bible, one must first look to the scripture for evidence. In this case, I will be looking in the scripture to try and support my case that the teaching of "Eternal Security" was indeed present in the scripture.

Contention one: Prodigal Son

Though there are many teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ that we could use to support the existence of eternal security in the bible, his teachings of the "Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-22) would work best as biblical evidence. This teaching shows us the full extent of sin on ones life and how one is in a way "re-born" from the ashes of his sin.

Sub point one: Elaboration

"Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.
13 "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 "When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.' 20 So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 "The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'
22 "But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.
25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,' he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31 "‘My son,' the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'" (http://www.biblegateway.com...)

The teaching starts by focusing on the younger of two sons who asked for and received his share of inheritance from his father. Upon receiving this, he went into the world and spent his money sleeping with prostitutes and living a wild life. Soon afterwards there was a severe famine, during this time he was unable to purchase any food due to the fact that he wasted all his inheritance on the wrong things. he longed to eat the pods that the pigs ate, but no one was willing to give him any. It was during this moment of hardship did he come to his senses, he returned to his father who with no hesitation accepted him despite the fact that he had wasted his entire share of inheritance.

Within this proverb, certain verses need to be taken more seriously than others. Verses 24 and 32 are essential to this proverb, controversy and study. Both of these verses reveals the spiritual condition of the prodigal son before and after his voyage into the real world in which he lived a wild life. Verse 24 talks of the sons RESURRECTION. Verse 32 as if to make a statement, repeats the same thing as the farther talks of his son as been "dead and is ALIVE AGAIN; he was lost and is found." This leads me to think that the point in which the father is making, was that his son was once dead (spiritually) but is now reborn. This is also seen in Rom 14:9 when Christ himself died and was Resurrected not as a human but as an image of God and according to the bible, God has Eternal life and is seen as perfect)

Contention two: Scriptural evidence
in this contention, I will use several scripture passages rather than one to support the teaching of eternal security in the bible.

Scripture one: "For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14)

Without any background knowledge of the scripture, one can still deduct the meaning to this verse. The use of the phrase "one sacrifice", suggests that a Christian only needs to repent ones to be made 'forever (eternity) " holy (security/ admittance to heaven). Like I mentioned earlier, this phrase is self explanatory as it supports my point in that whenever someone is made a true Christian (born again), then that person is granted eternal security in gods eye.

Scripture two: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This scripture supports the last as it restates the teaching of Hebrew. It tells us that a true Christian is granted eternal life which could be translated to eternal security in gods eye. The fact that the bible tells us that Gods promises us of eternal life, doesn't only support my case in re-stating that the bible teaches eternal security but also tells us that eternal security is a fact as God cannot lie. The bible in stating this verse acknowledges the existence of Eternal Security.

Scripture three: "14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14)

Yet another verse stating and supporting the idea that God has given eternal life to True Christians.

In conclusion, I have provided plentiful evidence showing that the bible does indeed teach Eternal Security as well as recognize concept as a true concept.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Con

Thank you for providing your argument. Is it possible to fall from grace? This is a very important issue that is necessary to give attention to. Sorry for the long wait and if I do not respond to everything, I appologize.True Christian=Born Again Christian which I agree.

Rebuttal Contention 1: Prodigal son.

My opponent makes a fatal mistake in this debate by using the parable of the prodigal son. You can fall from grace and the prodigal son proves it.Notice that Jesus makes the parallell: "...was dead, and is alive again; he was lost and is found." (Like 15:24).

One thing is for sure; a person in state of being "Saved" is not lost, and a person possessing salvation will notbe considered as being dead.

I'm sorry, but I have been focusing mostly on my abortion debate and am unable to completely respond...I will respond in the next round. This is not a concession.
wierdman

Pro

wierdman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Con

Vote con!
wierdman

Pro

I am sorry that i was unable to post my rebuttal. I had technically difficulty over the course of the weekend. I also had a debate tournament during that weekend.

Rebuttal: prodigal son
"My opponent makes a fatal mistake in this debate by using the parable of the prodigal son. You can fall from grace and the prodigal son proves it.Notice that Jesus makes the parallell: "...was dead, and is alive again; he was lost and is found." (Like 15:24). "

My opponent agrees to my definition of true christian. In his opening argument, my opponent states that "It is impossible for a Christian to do anything that would send him to hell." The fact that my opponent uses the word christian, means that my opponent agrees that the person in question is a true Christian in God's eye also meaning that the individual is a born again. With this been said, we must look at the fact the my opponent agrees to my definition of true christian, renders this argument false thus supporting my argument that a true CHRISTIAN is provided with eternal security.

"One thing is for sure; a person in state of being "Saved" is not lost, and a person possessing salvation will notbe considered as being dead."

This statement makes no sense as my opponent failed to elaborate on his point also rendering his argument null.

"I'm sorry, but I have been focusing mostly on my abortion debate and am unable to completely respond...I will respond in the next round. This is not a concession."

My opponent did not further elaborate on his thought meaning that i am unable to properly understand his side of the argument.

Opponents case:

"You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

My opponent's acceptance of my definition of true christian makes this point null. This scripture verse does not describe a true christian in terms of the debates definition.

" "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

ones again, this describes a hypocrite who calls himself christian. This does not describe a true christian.

In conclusion, My opponent have failed to convince me that the bible does not preach the existence of Eternal security. My opponent also weakend his case in agreeing to my definition of a true christian as described by the bible. For these reasons... please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
Yeah, but had no trouble voting for yourself. *blocked*
Posted by wierdman 3 years ago
wierdman
I didn't forfeit on purpose, like i mentioned earlier, i had a computer problem
Posted by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
Very clever to forfeit a round and then argue in the last round :)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
kohaiwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a fatal mistake in his use of the prodigal son and never rebutted Kohai's case. His multi-accounting, forfeit, and presentation of an argument in the final round all add up to a loss...
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
kohaiwierdmanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet loses conduct, plus multi accounting. Args to Con because I felt his arguments were "by far better" .
Vote Placed by innomen 3 years ago
innomen
kohaiwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering a multi accounter who's voting for himself.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 3 years ago
darkhearth
kohaiwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: better argument but i do agree that conduct should go to con due to forfeits. I personally thought that pro had more reliable sources as he countered some of con's sources, showing that some of con's sources supports pro's argument.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
kohaiwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF