The Instigator
lucasjcole
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,433 times Debate No: 61807
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (5)

 

lucasjcole

Pro

Resolved:

In the end, Jesus Christ will save all of mankind.

Assumptions:

This assumes you believe in the traditional Christian faith, the authority of the Bible, and the Deity of Christ.

Defintiions:

Save: To translate them into a place of ever-lasting goodness.

Mankind: Every 100% human being (not counting hybrid angels or clones)

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttal
Round 5: Closing statements (no rebuttals)

If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinenly want a great debate here.
Debate Round No. 1
lucasjcole

Pro

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world that all men be saved and that no man perishes.
1 Timothy 2:3&4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

2. God is sovereign and fully able to ensure His plans are fulfilled.
Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

3. Therefore, all men will be saved.
1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

In light of the above reasoning and evidence in Holy Scripture, we must attempt to interpret the hell related verses through the lense of Universal Salvation. Which, upon doing so, leads us to the conclusion that Hell is meant to be a place of limited, however harsh, corrective punishment used to bring people to repentance and faith (even post-mortem). That the words "ever-lasting, eternal, forever" when describing hell are not inferring an unending length of time, but a long duration or specific period of time. This is evidenced by a study of the Hebrew and Greek roots Olam, Aion, Aionios, all of which in various parts of scripture are used to denote varying periods of time.

That an understanding of hell as a place of corrective punishment is consistent with God's character (as revealed in Scripture), while damning people to eternity apart from Himself is not (reference the entire story of Israel - a stiff necked and rebellious people who by no merit of their own are given grace after grace after grace, even after very harsh judgments and punishments).

That Jesus Christ intended to save the ENTIRE world, not just some, not just a fraction, but all of it. He meant to reconcile "All things" to Himself, and His act on Calvary accomplished just that.

Anything less would be undermining His redemptive act, undermining God's sovereignty. and misinterpreting hell and punishment verses our of their redemptive context.

Looking forward to hearing your case Mikal.


Mikal

Con

There is a process in the bible called hermeneutics, which is how all scriptural text should be analyzed. It is the art and process of text interpretation. It's not just reading the text but understanding the intent behind the authors purpose. Take for example when we see the verse that says "women should be silent in church:". Upon first glance we think women should not be allowed to talk, but when we read the intent of the verse Paul was writing that to a certain church where the women literally needed to be quiet because they were causing issues in that specific church. That is how anything should be read, and especially so with the bible. Other wise the entire bible is subjective based on how you read it, and that is most definitely not the case.


C1) God's Glory

God designed and made us to worship him, and in the process designed some of us knowing that we would go to hell. Implying that everyone will be saved is a false statement because it takes away from the point of Gods glory and how people perceive free will. There will always be some that reject God, and we are given the choice in the bible to chose between heaven or hell.

The most basic verse you can apply to this is John 3 : 16

John 3 :16 - “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. "

This is saying if you follow and accept Christ you will have eternal life in heaven. Now what happens if you don't accept Christ?

Matthew 13 : 50" and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Revelation 21 : 8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

You are separated from God and send to eternal torment in hell. A crux of my adversaries argument is that hell is not eternal but again this is false. So let's review why.

Matthew 18 : 6-9 - "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire."


The key word there is eternal and even reverted the bible back to its earliest states in Hebrew, you often see the world "olam" used to describe hell which translates into eternal in the modern sense. For God to truly uphold his glory he must allow us free will in some sense, and save some and let the others perish. Without people going to hell, the righteous would have lived a life with no purpose. The entire premise of the bible is to serve and worship God and turn away from darkness.



C2) God made people to go to hell

Now that we have established hell is eternal and is not good. Let's see if god every sent someone to hell knowingly.

Exodus 9 : 12 - But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

It goes on to say that I raised you up to demonstrate by power and let you fall to show it as well. Something right along those lines. God used the Pharaoh and made him null to salvation to demonstrate his power in front of the people he was saving. He made him null to salvation in general. So yes hell is eternal and God made some of us knowing that we were designed to go there.




Debate Round No. 2
lucasjcole

Pro

Rebuttal:

C1) My opponent is asserting that in order for God to have glory, we must have free will, and some must therefore go to hell. First, there is nothing inherent in my argument that refutes free will. I am simply saying that God has a will too. and there is nothing so sacred about our will that God, for the sake of His own glory, would let us walk unwittingly into eternal torment. As a good father would do, He would intervene and do whatever He can to save us.

This in no way whatsoever diminishes God's glory. in fact, saving ALL mankind increases God's glory. What could be more glorious than for EVERY knee to bow, EVERY tongue to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord? I would argue the exact opposite of my opponent, that the only way for God to receive the MOST Glory is for Him to save everyone.

And there seems to be an inherent flaw in my opponent's argument, that "For God to truly uphold his glory he must allow us free will in some sense, and save some and let the others perish." He seems to contradict his very argument by asserting "God made some of us knowing that we were designed to go there (hell)." How can we have free will if God "Designed" us to go there? Where is the free will in that argument? Or in the case of God "hardening Pharoah's heart" and "raising him up for the very purpose of destroying him?" If free will is so tantamount to my opponent's argument, he flat contradicts himself in C2.

C2) I've already asserted that my opponent's entire argument in C1 is contradicted by C2, but for the sake of the debate let me address this point seperately.

From a hermeneutical standpoint, most of the time God is referring to a nation, He uses a human to personify that nation (Israel is actually Jacob, Pharoah is Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar is Babylon, etc). In this case, Pharoah is representative of the nation of Egypt. Now it is clear God destroyed Pharoah (Egypt) to glorify Himself, as my opponent has asserted. But let me draw your attention to a future verse revealing God's eternal heart for Egypt.

Isaiah 19:22&25 The Lord will strike Egypt, and then he will bring healing. For the Egyptians will turn to the Lord, and he will listen to their pleas and heal them...For the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will say, “Blessed be Egypt, my people.""

God's judgments are meant to ultimately RESTORE. Yes, He tears down, but He will rebuild. Yes He punishes, but He will forgive. Yes, he tore down Pharoah, but He hasn't written Egypt off for eternity.

--

So in summary, I have refuted my opponent's claim that some people must perish eternally for God to have glory, but rather God is MOST glorified in the salvation of all, and have shown that, in this sense, my opponent's two arguments directly contradict eachother. I have also shown that God's judgments are meant to bring correction and restoration, not eternal damnation. Pharoah and Egypt are great examples of this very point.

Vote Pro!!!!
Mikal

Con

My adversary seems to think he has refuted my arguments when in fact he has refuted nothing, but halfway offered a concession.


C1) Glory and a eternal hell

Let me lay this out in a syllogism

(P1) For God to save all of mankind hell cannot be eternal
(P2) Hell is eternal
(C) Since hell is eternal God, cannot save all of mankind.

Hell's primary purpose is to serve as a punishment for those that reject Christ. God would willingly and has willingly let us walk into hell, he made us for that purpose. I'm not sure what bible my adversary is reading, but God sending people to an eternal hell is a key point in almost every translation and its found even within the dead sea scrolls. He also asserts that it does not diminish God's glory which is false in and of itself, as God would be forcing you to be saved in order to save all of mankind. Literally he is assuming one of two things. A either God will force everyone to be saved, or B everyone will accept God (if hell is not eternal) prima facie. Both of which are not supported by scripture. The scripture says he has "come to save all" not that he will save all. There are two ways to look at this

You have the Calvinistic perspective which to me is the most viable

This is where you acknowledge that only certain people will go into hell, and certain ones will go into heave. This is defended by the context and linguistics revolving around the world "all" in the bible. As most linguistics, the version of all that is presented is referring to a group of people and not the over all majority

Then you have the traditional view point, where everyone has free will and can chose either way. Everyone will not heaven, this is abundantly obvious as people in the bible were sentenced to hell themselves. So for my adversary contention and case to be true, he would have to show that how hell is not eternal because people are already in hell .

If god would by extension force everyone to be saved, or save everyone even if they rejected him this diminishes his glory. As anyone could act anyway and end up in heaven. The glory of God is that he saves those that choose to follow him, that is a Christians reward, and by denying that to them and saying you can act anyway and end up in heaven you are undermining the core principle of the bible.

A) free will in Calvinism

My adversary lacks a fundamental understanding of a Calvinistic argument. We have the free will to do whatever we want, chose God , not chose God, brush my teeth etc. This does not mean that the act was already pre determined by God. I have free will in the sense I can chose what to do, but its not free in the sense that it is pre determined.


C2) Designed for hell

Romans 8 28 - 30 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

God himself knows everything, and he knew the choices he would make when he created us. So yes we were designed knowing that we would reject God. This verse in itself shows that he knew that some people would conform to the image of his son (Christians) and that others would reject him (sinners).

If there is a God my adversary is applying his concept of what is just to a higher being

Isiah 55 : 8-9 " For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"


Conclusion

My adversary has not refuted anything nor has he upheld his Burden. For him to even begin his burden he must show that hell is not eternal. Until then he has not even presented an argument.







Debate Round No. 3
lucasjcole

Pro

Let me begin by stating, once again, evidence that would refute the "eternal" nature of hell (and let me also note that my opponent has based the entire credibility of his argument on this point which I've already refuted).

"That the words "ever-lasting, eternal, forever" when describing hell are not inferring an unending length of time, but a long duration or specific period of time. This is evidenced by a study of the Hebrew and Greek roots Olam, Aion, Aionios, all of which in various parts of scripture are used to denote varying periods of time."

Two problems with my opponent's use of the word "eternal."

1) Eternal: lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning. (From Merriam Webster's Dictionary). To say something is "eternal" it means it has no beginning. Hell surely has a beginning therefore eternal cannot literally eternal, or else we have a serious theological problem.

2) If eternal doesn't literally mean eternal, what does it mean? It means "age" (which is the literal meaning of Aion and Aionios, the Greek words "eternal" are translated from).

For example:

Jonah 2:6: " I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me FOREVER (owlam)."

Matthew 12:39: " For as Jonah was three days and nights ..." (Owlam = 3 days???)

_________________________________________________________________

Exodus 28:43 (concerning Aaron's call as a priest) "...it shall be a statue for EVER unto him and his seed after him."

Hebrews 7:11 "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood...what further need...another priest...after the order of Melchizedec..."


According to my opponent, every time the word forever or eternal or eternity are used, it HAS to mean literally forever, yet here are two (of many) cases when it is clear from scripture that "forever" only means "a period of time" or "age."

And lastly:

Revelation 20:13 - "Then death and Hell were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."

Why would Hell be thrown into the lake of fire, to die, if it was eternal?

Answer - it's not eternal. It serves a purpose, then it is destroyed.

---

So I have shown how the "eternal" which is so paramount to my adversary's argument does not have to literally mean forever. Which is enough to dismantle his entire position, but let me continue.

My opponent seems to be mistaken about Calvinism:

"You have the Calvinistic perspective which to me is the most viable"

From Wikipedia's description of Calvinism: http://en.wikipedia.org...:

"sin so affects human nature that they are unable even to exercise faith in Christ by their own will.... To remedy this, ... God chose or predestined some people to save. This choise is considered unconditional and not based on any characteristic or action on the part of the person chosen"

So the "most viable" system of theology, according to my opponent, flatly contradicts his premise, which is, I quote:

"The glory of God is that he saves those that choose to follow him, that is a Christians reward, and by denying that to them and saying you can act anyway and end up in heaven you are undermining the core principle of the bible."

But Calvinism asserts the opposite, that WE don't CHOOSE Him, HE chooses US!

To which my opponent must then assert that God doesn't design us knowing what we might choose, He chooses where we go before He designs us, some of which are predestined to a place of eternal conscious torment, and that somehow brings Him glory.

Yes... you are right Mikal, we are reading different Bibles.

The God of my Bible saved the world. The God of my Bible judges us to correct us. The God of my Bible "won't cast man off forever" (Lam 3:31). Yes there is a hell, but it is there not to FORCE men to believe, but to orchestrate their circumstances such that they will see the absolute error of their ways and repent.





Mikal

Con

C1) Hell is eternal

My adversary tries to use fails to use linguistics to properly show that eternal is not in fact eternal. In an attempt to shift what a definition means, he tries to say that eternal in the bible actually refers to a specific time period. With proper hermeneutics you can break down and decipher what certain verses mean in the bible.

Take for example kol in Hebrew which translates to all. There are passages in the bible that refers to God saving "all" or "kol" of mankind. This can be deciphered and broken down and then we realize that all is actually referring to a set group of people. "All" the people, (elect), or etc and so fort. The way this is logically validated is that "all" can be actually applied in that way and was to be intended to be applied that way. Because all can be directed at a set group of people and not everyone objectively.

This is what my adversary fails to do with eternal. He tries to state that words that mean eternal such as "Olam" as I stated mean a specific time period. In fact "Olam" in Hebrew literally means eternal or ever lasting. [1]

Olam - Eternity or forever, everlasting [1]

In some references the verse means a time or future that cannot be imagined, and can be translated to in the ancient past or future. It also can be referred to as a distant future that can never be imagined.

Take for example Matthew 18 : 8 - If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. [2]

ai!3;nios is the greek word for everlasting [2][3]

Aionis literally is translated from Greek with the meaning of -

(1)without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
(2)without beginning
(3)without end, never to cease, everlasting [3]

So despise what my adversary says, the biblical intent for what hell entails is in fact everlasting and without end. Something can be everlasting without having a beginning. Despite the usage of the word eternal in modern english, the word literally translates to fire without end in greek.

So I revert back to my intial premise which still stands

(P1) For God to save all of mankind hell cannot be eternal
(P2) Hell is eternal
(C) Since hell is eternal God, cannot save all of mankind.


C2) Calvinism and Gods glory

Discussing Calvinism with someone that lacks an understated of what Calvinism is remains difficult. IT is comrpised of an acronym called the tulip.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

There are different types of Calvinism and different extremes. Meaning for each point you believe people consider you an (x) point Calvinist. Some preachers such as John Piper actually stepped to the extreme and added two points. The point my adversary is referring to is limited atonement. Meaning God's salvation is limited to set group of people. This would be a debate in a debate explaining this accurately and breaking down the greek and Hebrew meanings of words. Most people assert that since God predestined the world, it necessitates there is no free will of choice which is false. We still have the choice to be saved and it is still our free will to choose him, but not all of us will and he has already ordained that. So yes it is free will in the sense that we have the choice, but also predestined.

The Glory of God that requires hell is based upon salvation and the choice to accept him, not being forced too. Free will is still applicable to everyone.








[1] http://arotau.com...
[2] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
[3] https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 4
lucasjcole

Pro

I'm traveling and typing this on my phone to ensure I don't FF this round so please excuse any typos.

In closing, I have made the argument that the Bible does in fact support a universalist view. That it is not unreasonable to conclude that Jesus Christ will in fact save all of mankind.

I have made this argument by showing clear examples from scripture that would lead the reader to conclude thus.

My opponent made two very clear, yet very incorrect and unfounded arguments:

That God's glory is dependent upon humans having free will (which he contradicted himself in his own argument).

That Hell is eternal because the bible says it is.

I have shown how God could be glorified in saving all mankind, nay how He could be MORE glorified in doing so.

And have I shown that the words translated as "eternal, forever, and everlasting" do not in every case mean a literal unending period of time, and that a different translation is at least possible and, in some cases, even more likely the case.

My opponent is this unsuccessful in refuting my proposition and therefore I urge you voters to not only vote in my favor, but more importantly, give this topic serious thought yourself. Study the scriptures, look into the matter and you too will come to the same conclusion as I.

God is mighty to save. Everyone. He loves us. He died for us. His plan is to save all of us. And this should leave us in such a state of awe and gratitude that we want nothing else than to love Him right back.

Thank you for the debate Mikal. It was fun and I appreciated your pov.

Vote Pro!!
Mikal

Con

There is nothing really left to say as the primary syllosgism I used remains unrefuted

P1) For God to save everyone hell would have to be not eternal
P2) Hell is eternal
C) God will not save everyone, because hell is eternal

In order for the resolution to be upheld my adversary would have to show that hell will come to an end. If you view my last round, I clearly cited and stated sources that showed the words that translate from Greek/Hebrew to English as forever, in fact mean forever. This is covered in depth in R4. The primary example I used which was not even touched was the translation of Aionis which literally means without end, never to cease, ever lasting. This was used to describe hell in original Greek and Hebrew bible and cited in the proper context. My adversary fails to even touch on this point at all

Most of my other contentions went non refuted as well.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lucasjcole 2 years ago
lucasjcole
@jonbonbon - you gave con the points for sources and said it was because "he used the bible", but we both used the Bible. Clarify?

And all voters - if the currently held belief is that some will definitely not be saved, and I proved that that isn't a definite conclusion, then showed that the Bible actually espouses the POV that all WILL be saved, how is that not supporting my argument? I heard people say "he proved they could, not that they will," but I would submit that proving the possibility IS proving the inevitability.

Anyway, I guess it really doesn't matter. We're all going to be saved anyway, am I right? ;)
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If you noticed in the word, after Jesus was raised from the dead, he taught them from the word of God and it pricked their hearts.Because seeing only gets to the mind, not the spirit man. Only the word of God has the power in itself to reach down inside a man and prick his heart, or spirit.Jesus himself could walk in here and with those nail-scarred hands tell you that you are healed. But unless you believe from the word of God, it will not work.Miracles do not produce faith.Blessings come only from believing without seeing.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Lucas:I never said it disqualified anyone. But , like I said,Jesus never appeared to anyone but those who were already committed to the word of God. He never healed anyone. Or raised anyone from the dead.He only preached to those souls in the upper regions of hell. Abraham's bosom it was called. Because those in the lower regions had never made covenant with God in the old testament.

You must have blinders on. Jesus himself said, " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but the world through him might be saved.

He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.

He is condemned already because he has spiritual death lodged in him from adam.Just seeing Jesus will not get a man born-again. Because sight does not have any seed in it. " We are born-again, not of corruptible seed, but by incorruptible seed, the word of God that lives and abides forever." If you believe because you see or feel things, then faith can never happen. That is where Catholicism misses it. They have all these statues to " aid " the folks to believe. But it has the opposite effect. They believe by sight, not by faith. And Hebrews 11: 6 says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without faith.Faith comes only one way. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The bible says even the devils believe God and tremble.The born-again man does not tremble at God. We are to come BOLDLY to the throne of grace.We are his family.

Even pentacostalism went down that road. " Don't you feel God." No. If we ever got a real good feeling of God it woul;d blow these mortal bodies apart. That is why the Holy Spirit enters the believers spirit man, not his body.
Posted by lucasjcole 2 years ago
lucasjcole
@cheyenne - so again, anyone who saw the risen Christ is disqualified from salvation because they SAW, and therefore couldn't genuinely exercise faith? Is that your argument? Cuz it's got all kindsa holes in it dear. Gonna have to dig deeper than that.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Lucas. That was the only plan God could have initiated. And it could have failed.Jesus could have called those ten legions of angels to deliver him. He had every right to.But for the joy set before him he went to the cross.We are the joy set before him. The reborn man, the family of God.

And do you know that it was possible that no one would have believed he would rise from the dead.Not probably, but possibly. When He died there were only two beings that believed it. Jesus and the Father. Everyone else fell apart like a cheap watch.But jesus and the Father are a majority.

And seeing Jesus risen from the dead even did not convince people to stay with God. Jesus appeared to 500 people after he was raised from the dead. Only those who were already his. He gave simple instructions, Tarry at Jerusalem till the day of Pentecost.How many of them showed up? 120. What ever happened to the other 380. Bless their stupid hearts.

That is why Jesus did not stay here and walk up and down throughout this earth holding his nail-scarred hands up. Because then the folks would believe because they could see and feel.And there would be no faith at all in that.Just as Jesus told Thomas. " you are faithless ( no faith at all) you believe because you see.That is why there will be no reborn people in hell. They only believe because they can see.

And since it takes faith for God to move, they can never have faith, believing without seeing.

I understand why you so much want to believe this, but it is only wishful thinking. You not understanding spiritual law is why you think this way.
Posted by lucasjcole 2 years ago
lucasjcole
For anyone interested, here's a neat little calculation that shows how many new souls end up in hell every second. Even a handy little timer so you can see how many poor blokes have been cast into the eternal furnace since you opened the page. Check it out! http://www.biblehelp.org...
Posted by lucasjcole 2 years ago
lucasjcole
@cheyenne - it's pretty ridiculous to say that the "Good Father" stepped in and saved "some" from the wrath He executes Himself. And his master plan to save people relies on fallen people who happened to hear the gospel from other fallen people who may not have even presented it correctly. Seems like a pretty weak plan to me.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
lucas : You said " as a good father God would intervene and stop us unwittingly go to eternal torment." He did just that. He sent Jesus to the cross to give us the new birth. He intervened, but one thing he will not do is use force against your will.And as Father he has given US eternal life. Now the bible says " this is manifest, the children of God and the children of the devil" All mankind is not children of God. IF we were, then why the new birth? And at final judgment all men will hear one of two words. " Enter into the joy of the Lord", Or," depart from me, for I NEVER knew you."I am sure as a person hears those words the sinking feeling in his heart would cause wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We do not enjoy putting this out there, neither are we going to stick our heads in the sand and wish it were so.
Posted by jthop3 2 years ago
jthop3
Pointless debate since it is YHWH who saves...Jesus saves no one...
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
@lucasjcole

define the parameters of the authority in the Biblical scriptures
because the anti-Christ is condemned to hell. So you already loose.
next, the sheep are separated from the Goats, and the goats go to hell.
in addition, Jesus will say to those who come up to him in the end, "I do not know you."

However, because Save was defined in your opening argument, You win regardless of this lax flaw,
Because: Gods judgment is not one of a cruel nature, but to provide the best possible result. So long as the best result takes place, regardless of where any individual has been situated, it is a "Good place" and God has prevented them from further incurring negative renown upon themselves, regardless of how negative a renown they acquired for themselves prior.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
lucasjcoleMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this is an easy vote. Pro had to show me that under any circumstance we will be saved no matter what. I think Con did a good job in showing that Pro's arguments are more that we "can" be saved, not that we "have" to be saved. I think this distinction is important. Seeing how the translation from Greek implies eternal; and how the verses Pro gave do not fulfill his BoP I vote Con. Though I should note that Con's syllogism is invalid: please give a proper syllogism next time. In any case I do not see how Pro could have won here, it seems that he could not show that all of us will go to Heaven, even if he answered the Glory Point correctly-ish his own arguments (since he was Pro) were lacking. Happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
lucasjcoleMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that Hell is an eternal fire. I'm going to choose to take that literally. Due to that, pro's premise has been undermined. That's pretty much the end of the story. So con gets arguments for being right and sources for using the Bible. Just in case that needed to be cleared up.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
lucasjcoleMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's conclusion does not follow from his premises. He shows only that God could save all mankind, not that God will save all of mankind. The fact that hell is eternal does not negate the resolution, but because Mikal outlined that some people will go to hell, he wins -because that does negate the resolution. Arguments to CON.
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 2 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
lucasjcoleMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the more convincing debater even though I agree with Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lucasjcoleMikalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Mikal showed that hell has no end, thus Jesus cannot save all of mankind "in the end" because there IS NO END.